MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RAPID SYMPATRY EXPLAINS GREATER COLOR PATTERN DIVERGENCE IN HIGH LATITUDE BIRDS

2009· article· fr· W2115563748 on OpenAlexaff
Paul R. Martin, Robert Montgomerie, Stephen C. Lougheed

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySympatryDivergence (linguistics)LatitudeEvolutionary biologyEcologySympatric speciationAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Latitudinal variation in patterns of evolution has fascinated biologists for over a century, but our understanding of latitudinal differences in evolutionary processes-such as selection and drift-remains limited. Here, we test for, and find, accelerated evolution of color patterns in bird taxa that breed at higher latitudes compared with those breeding in the tropics, analyzing data from seven diverse avian families. Most important, we show that the extent of overlap of species' breeding ranges (degree of sympatry) explains the elevated rate of color pattern evolution at higher latitudes. We suggest that the dynamic shifts in breeding ranges that accompanied climatic changes during the last 3 million years (Milankovitch Oscillations) resulted in more rapid and more frequent secondary contact at high latitudes. We argue that sympatry among diverging clades causes greater divergence of color traits in birds at higher latitudes through sexual, social, or ecological character displacement that accelerate rates of evolution, and through the selective elimination of weakly differentiated lineages that hybridize and fuse in sympatry (differential fusion).

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.226
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 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

Citations109
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207