Origins of Descending Spinal Pathways in Prehensile Birds: Do Parrots Have a Homologue to the Corticospinal Tract of Mammals?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mammals, the supraspinal descending projections that influence distal limb muscles are the rubrospinal and corticospinal tracts. The former, which is found in other vertebrates, shows greater somatotopy in mammals that are 'dextrous' (e.g. monkeys) than those that are not (e.g. opossums). Similarly, the corticospinal tract, which is found only in mammals, has more extensive connections (i.e. direct corticomotoneural) in mammals that are dextrous than in mammals that are not. Descending spinal pathways have been described in 'non-dextrous' avian species (chickens, ducks, geese and pigeons), and the purpose of this study was to determine if there are any differences in the origins of descending projections to the spinal cord in 'dextrous' or prehensile parrots (sulphur-crested cockatoo, Cacatua galerita, and eastern rosella, Platycerus eximius). True Blue or wheat germ agglutinin-horseradish peroxidase was injected into the lumbar or cervical spinal cord. The distribution of retrogradely labelled cells was similar to that previously reported for non-prehensile birds. We found no evidence of any direct spinal projections from the telencephalon (including any pathway homologous to the corticospinal tract of mammals), nor any specialized anatomical organization of the descending pathways that could account for the pedal dexterity of these species.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".