Comparative Study of Visual Pathways in Owls (Aves: Strigiformes)
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
Although they are usually regarded as nocturnal, owls exhibit a wide range of activity patterns, from strictly nocturnal, to crepuscular or cathemeral, to diurnal. Several studies have shown that these differences in the activity pattern are reflected in differences in eye morphology and retinal organization. Despite the evidence that differences in activity pattern among owl species are reflected in the peripheral visual system, there has been no attempt to correlate these differences with changes in the visual regions in the brain. In this study, we compare the relative size of nuclei in the main visual pathways in nine species of owl that exhibit a wide range of activity patterns. We found marked differences in the relative size of all visual structures among the species studied, both in the tectofugal and the thalamofugal pathway, as well in other retinorecipient nuclei, including the nucleus lentiformis mesencephali, the nucleus of the basal optic root and the nucleus geniculatus lateralis, pars ventralis. We show that the barn owl (Tyto alba), a species widely used in the study of the integration of visual and auditory processing, has reduced visual pathways compared to strigid owls. Our results also suggest there could be a trade-off between the relative size of visual pathways and auditory pathways, similar to that reported in mammals. Finally, our results show that although there is no relationship between activity pattern and the relative size of either the tectofugal or the thalamofugal pathway, there is a positive correlation between the relative size of both visual pathways and the relative number of cells in the retinal ganglion layer.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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