ArticleRoyal Society open science2019
Superregular grammars do not provide additional explanatory power but allow for a compact analysis of animal song.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring context dependency in birdsong using artificial neural networks.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Toward a Computational Neuroethology of Vocal Communication: From Bioacoustics to Neurophysiology, Emerging Tools and Future Directions.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2021Review
- Finding, visualizing, and quantifying latent structure across diverse animal vocal repertoires.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- What can formal language theory do for animal cognition studies?Royal Society open science · 2020Article
- Difficulties in analysing animal song under formal language theory framework: comparison with metric-based model evaluation.Royal Society open science · 2020Article
- Superregular grammars do not provide additional explanatory power but allow for a compact analysis of animal song.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A pervasive belief with regard to the differences between human language and animal vocal sequences (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.