Ultraviolet reflectance and female mating preferences in the common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies revealed the importance of plumage brightness (considering only the visible spectral range) in female mate choice of common kestrels ( Falco tinnunculus L., 1758). Our study focuses on the effect of UV reflectance on female preference; we hypothesize that common kestrel females prefer males with UV-reflecting plumage and refuse, or are not attracted to, males whose plumage UV reflectance is prevented. We tested the preference of 20 captive females who were given a choice between two males, one behind a UV-transmitting (UV+) filter and another one behind a UV-blocking (UV–) filter. Female preference was measured as frequency and duration of visits to either male, specifically by sitting on the perch or hanging on to the partition wall. Females visited the male behind the UV+ filter more often than the male behind the UV– filter, indicating that females prefer males with UV-reflecting plumage than males without UV reflection. UV plumage and skin reflectance could provide females with information regarding current male conditions more so than other colours and other morphological parameters.
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) | 0.001 | 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".