The relationships between brain regions and forelimb dexterity in marsupials (Marsupialia): a comparative test of the principle of proper mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A behavioural index of forelimb dexterity and comparative statistics were used to analyse the relationships between proximal (shoulder, upper and lower forelimb) and distal (wrist, forepaw, digits) forelimb dexterity and four aspects of brain morphology (overall brain, cortex, cerebellum and telencephalon sizes) in 18 species of marsupials. On the basis of the principle of proper mass, it was expected that an increase in forelimb dexterity (either proximal or distal) would be positively correlated with the size of the brain and the three brain components. Using independent contrast analysis to remove the effects of phylogeny revealed three significant correlations between: cortex size and distal dexterity, cerebellum size and proximal dexterity, and telencephalon size and distal dexterity. The relationship between cortex size and distal dexterity was subsequently corroborated by Spearman rank correlations. These results suggest that the execution of finely coordinated forelimb movements may not be dependent upon overall brain size, but may be dependent upon the size of brain components, thus supporting the principle of proper mass.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".