Relative brain size in Australian birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among species, relative brain size (RBS) is correlated with aspects of ecology and behaviour. We analysed patterns of RBS in Australian birds based on 3164 measurements of brain size in 504 species, and provide species-level data for further analysis. Regression slopes calculated both with and without phylogenetic correction are provided for all species and for well-represented orders and passerine families. Patterns of brain-size allometry differ among orders but the evidence for variation among passerine families is equivocal, depending on the method of analysis. These differences are attributable both to absolute differences in RBS corresponding to different regression intercepts and to different regression slopes. Allometric patterns in Australian birds are virtually identical to those reported elsewhere, with large RBS in parrots, cockatoos and owls, and particularly small RBS in galliforms, dromaiids, grebes, swifts and swallows. Our data can be used to generate hypotheses about the drivers of RBS in particular avian groups. For example, small RBS in unrelated aerial foragers suggests that physical constraints may influence the evolution of RBS.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".