The crest of the peafowl: a sexually dimorphic plumage ornament signals condition in both males and females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both male and female peafowl grow crests on top of their head – iridescent blue in males, dull iridescent green and brown in females – but the potential signal function of this plumage ornament is unknown. In this study, peafowl crests were measured in three feral populations, and morphological variation in this ornament was studied in relation to body condition (body mass in relation to tarsus length) and health (white blood cell concentration and ectoparasite load). Prior to the start of the breeding season, male crests are wider with greater pennaceous area, and are more likely to have all feathers grown out compared with female crests. Only crest length changed with measurement date, increasing over time; in males, crest measurements were not related to the extent of train feather development. Crest morphology is a potential signal of individual health and condition in both sexes, but in different ways. In females, the amount of crest plumage grown out to its full extent was related to body condition at the start of the breeding season, whereas in males, the size and pennaceous area of the ornament were related to ectoparasite load. Observations of within‐sex agonistic behaviour suggest a possible role for the crest ornament in status signaling in males, because males that engage in more aggressive interactions tend to have wider crests. There was no evidence for a relation between crest morphology and agonistic behaviour in females.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".