MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977706517 · doi:10.1159/000077540

Retinal Morphology and Electrophysiology of Two Caprimulgiformes Birds: The Cave-Living and Nocturnal Oilbird <i>(Steatornis caripensis)</i>, and the Crepuscularly and Nocturnally Foraging Common Pauraque <i>(Nyctidromus albicollis)</i>

2004· article· en· W1977706517 on OpenAlexafffund
Luz Marina Rojas, Yenny Paola Gonzalez Ramirez, Raymond McNeil, Michael Mitchell, Gedio Marín

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsScotopic visionPhotopic visionCrepuscularBiologyNocturnalRetinalAnatomyRetinaNight visionDarknessZoologyEcologyPhysicsOpticsBotanyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oilbirds (Steatornis caripensis) breed in the total darkness of caves and forage at night on fruits. Common pauraques (Nyctidromus albicollis) are crepuscular and nocturnal foragers on flying insects. We examined if their retinal structure and function can be correlated with their types and periods of activity. Electroretinograms (ERGs) were obtained from anesthetized birds in photopic and scotopic conditions to a wide range of light intensities, following which the retinas were processed for histological analysis. Retinal sensitivity is higher in oilbirds than in common pauraques. Under scotopic conditions with maximum flash luminance, the average (+/- 95% CI) b-wave amplitude of oilbirds is double that of common pauraques (500.4 +/- 49.8 and 245.4 +/- 40.9 microV, respectively) but, under photopic conditions, the results are the reverse (common pauraque: 69.4 +/- 18.1; oilbird: 23.0 +/- 4.4 microV). On the other hand, the retina of both species is highly rod-dominated, but rods are highly more numerous in oilbirds than in common pauraques (rods:cones ratio: 123:1 and 5:1, respectively). In oilbirds, rods are largely thinner and their outer segments are 1.0 microm in diameter and 18.6 microm in length. They are distributed over various levels in the photoreceptor layers, an arrangement known for deep-sea fishes, but so far unknown for birds. In common pauraques, rods are patchily distributed and their outer segments are 4.0 microm in diameter and 53 microm in length. The oilbirds rod thinness allows more rods per area unit, and thus to catch more photons per area unit under darkness, while the low cone number suggests that the species has poor daytime vision, which concurs with the species cavernicolous daytime habits. The lower rod number of common pauraques, compared to oilbirds, appears counterbalanced by their patchiness and longer and thicker outer segments to provide high retinal sensitivity. In addition, common pauraques also have a tapetum. These features, combined with a higher proportion of cones, show that common pauraques are well equipped for crepuscular and nocturnal foraging on flying insects in an open environment.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207