Developmental differences are correlated with relative brain size in birds: a comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possible relationships between relative brain size and developmental mode and between relative brain size and five measures of the length of the development period were tested across over 1400 species of birds. Using both conventional statistics and phylogenetically based comparative methods, significant differences in relative brain size were detected among modes of development. Across all species, there were significant relationships between relative brain size and each of the following developmental traits: incubation period, age of fledging, duration of postfledging parental care, and total period of parental care. In contrast, the age of first flight was not significantly correlated with relative brain size. The relationships between these five developmental traits and relative brain size varied among developmental modes and orders such that significant relationships were present within some modes and orders but not in others. Thus, developmental differences play a significant role in the evolution of brain-size differences, but the role depends upon the taxonomic level being investigated. This is likely due to the differential lengths of periods of neural and behavioural development in young birds. Our conclusions support the contention of previous studies that developmental differences have played a key role in avian brain evolution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".