Genetic evaluation of the mating system in the blue-and-yellow macaw (Ara ararauna, Aves, Psittacidae) by DNA fingerprinting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 90% of birds are socially monogamous, although genetic studies indicate that many are often not sexually monogamous. In the present study, DNA fingerprinting was used to estimate the genetic relationships between nestlings belonging to the same broods to evaluate the mating system in the socially monogamous macaw, Ara ararauna. We found that in 10 of 11 broods investigated, the nestlings showed genetic similarity levels congruent with values expected among full-sibs, suggesting that they shared the same parents. However, in one brood, the low genetic similarity observed between nestlings could be a result of intraspecific brood parasitism, intraspecific nest competition or extra-pair paternity. These results, along with available behavioral and life-history data, imply that the blue-and-yellow macaw is not only socially, but also genetically monogamous. However, the occurrence of eventual cases of extra-pair paternity cannot be excluded.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".