A Comparative Analysis of Relative Brain Size in Waterfowl (Anseriformes)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in relative brain size was examined in 55 species of waterfowl (Anseriformes). Using both conventional statistics and phylogenetically based comparative methods, the extent of variation in relative brain size and possible relationships with mode of foraging and diet were examined. The results indicate that although brain size does vary considerably between closely related species of waterfowl, it is not reliably related to either foraging mode or diet. There are a number of possible reasons for the lack of relationships between brain size and foraging mode and diet. Firstly, subtle changes in foraging mode and diet may favor relatively large changes in brain size. Secondly, foraging mode and diet could be correlated with the expansion of an individual brain region without affecting overall brain size. Thirdly, other behavioral/ecological traits may be more important with respect to brain size evolution in waterfowl. For example, the relatively large brain of the musk duck (Biziura lobata) and altriciality of their young in comparison to other stiff-tailed ducks (Oxyura spp.) indicates that developmental rate plays a significant role in the evolution of brain size. Given the difference between our results and that reported in inter-order comparisons of brain size in birds, further research is required into other avian orders to assess how brain size and behavior might be related within orders as well as between them.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it