MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100580304 · doi:10.1525/cond.2012.110086

Juvenal Plumage Polymorphism in Yellow Warblers Is Not Associated with Sex

2012· article· en· W2100580304 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanya G. Rohwer, Frances Bonier, Paul R. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumageBiologyFeatherZoologyWhite (mutation)WarblerPopulationEcologyGeneticsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polymorphisms of the juvenal plumage in birds have received little study in comparison to other plumages. We investigate a polymorphism in the juvenal plumage of the Yellow Warbler (Setophaga petechia) in southeastern Ontario, Canada. Yellow Warblers in juvenal plumage show either yellow or white plumage on their lower ventral surface of the neck, breast, and belly, and these differences have been speculated to be associated with sex. We tested the hypothesis that juvenal plumage color varies with sex by using blood samples to molecularly sex 10 yellow and 14 white nestlings. We found no relationship between plumage color and sex (yellow nestlings: 70% male, 30% female; white nestlings: 64% male, 36% female). Using the same 24 nestlings that we sexed, we measured feather color with a spectrometer and found that white and yellow morphs differ significantly in reflectance spectra of red and yellow chroma. Of 66 nestlings whose plumage color we visually inspected in the wild, 73% were white and 27% were yellow, showing that white nestlings are more common than yellow in our study population. We propose alternative explanations for the possible significance of yellow and white polymorphism in the juvenal plumage of the Yellow Warbler.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207