BEHAVIORAL DRIVE OR BEHAVIORAL INHIBITION IN EVOLUTION: SUBSPECIFIC DIVERSIFICATION IN HOLARCTIC PASSERINES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral changes have long been hypothesized to be an important driver of evolutionary diversification in animals, as they expose individuals to new environmental pressures and thus favor evolutionary divergence. There have been few empirical tests of this hypothesis, however, and the mechanisms linking behavioral changes and diversification processes remain controversial. We show here that Holarctic passerines with large brain size relative to body size, a character correlated with a high propensity for behavioral changes, generally have experienced more extensive subspecific diversification. This effect appears to be largely independent of other well-known mechanisms thought to promote diversification. As suggested by path analysis, relative brain size seems to affect diversification directly rather than indirectly through its presumed effect on range expansion, which is consistent with the original formulation of the behavioral drive hypothesis. Thus, the results support the long-held, intuitive hypothesis that behavioral changes facilitate evolutionary diversification.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it