MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034368892 · doi:10.1139/z02-208

Photorefractoriness and seasonal changes in the brain in response to changes in day length in American goldfinches (<i>Carduelis tristis</i>)

2002· article· en· W2034368892 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Regan H. Marsh, Scott A. MacDougall‐Shackleton, Thomas P. Hahn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyphotoperiodismDay lengthBreedSeasonal breederZoologyFinchLong dayReproductionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined neural and gonadal responses to photoperiod in a late-summer-breeding finch, the American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis). First we measured seasonal changes in the gonads of free-living goldfinches. Next we determined whether the gonads of goldfinches held on constant long days would eventually regress spontaneously. Finally, we compared the hypothalamic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) system and song-control system of breeding and postbreeding birds. The results confirm that the gonads of wild goldfinches regress in late summer and show that the gonads of goldfinches held on constant long days regress spontaneously. Thus, according to at least one criterion, goldfinches become photorefractory, like other seasonally breeding songbirds. As well, goldfinches exhibited similar seasonal changes in the brain to spring-breeding birds. There was a decrease in GnRH immunoreactivity in autumn and a strong trend towards a reduction in the size of song-control regions (although this was statistically significant for only one area). Thus, although goldfinches breed late in summer as day length declines, some of their physiological responses to changes in photoperiod are similar to those that occur in spring-breeding songbirds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207