MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087985679 · doi:10.1159/000270904

The Independent Evolution of the Enlargement of the Principal Sensory Nucleus of the Trigeminal Nerve in Three Different Groups of Birds

2009· article· en· W2087985679 on OpenAlexaff
Cristián Gutiérrez‐Ibáñez, Andrew N. Iwaniuk, Douglas R. Wylie

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeakSensory systemBiologyTongueAnatomyTrigeminal nerveWaterfowlBrainstemAnseriformesPsittaciformesZoologyNeuroscienceEcologyMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vertebrates, sensory specializations are usually correlated with increases in the brain areas associated with that specialization. This correlation is called the 'principle of proper mass' whereby the size of a neural structure is a reflection of the complexity of the behavior that it subserves. In recent years, several comparative studies have revealed examples of this principle in the visual and auditory system of birds, but somatosensory specializations have largely been ignored. Many species rely heavily on tactile information during feeding. Input from the beak, tongue and face, conveyed via the trigeminal, facial, glossopharyngeal and hypoglossal nerves, is first processed in the brain by the principal sensory nucleus of the trigeminal nerve (PrV) in the brainstem. Previous studies report that PrV is enlarged in some species that rely heavily on tactile input when feeding, but no extensive comparative studies have been performed. In this study, we assessed the volume of PrV in 73 species of birds to present a detailed analysis of the relative size variation of PrV using both conventional and phylogenetically based statistics. Overall, our results indicate that three distinct groups of birds have a hypertrophied PrV: waterfowl (Anseriformes), beak-probing shorebirds (Charadriiformes), and parrots (Psittaciformes). These three groups have different sensory requirements from the orofacial region. For example, beak-probing shorebirds use pressure information from the tip of the beak to find buried prey in soft substrates, whereas waterfowl, especially filter-feeding ducks, use information from the beak, palate, and tongue when feeding. Parrots likely require increased sensitivity in the tongue to manipulate food items. Thus, despite all sharing an enlarged PrV and feeding behaviors dependent on tactile input, each group has different requirements that have led to the independent evolution of a large PrV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations59
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207