Is there a relationship between forebrain size and group size in birds
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
The social complexity hypothesis of brain size evolution posits that demands from group living can favour an enlargement in brain size to allow individuals to process the greater amount of social information generated by group members more efficiently. We tested the hypothesis in birds using estimates of forebrain size from three different data sets. Phylogenetically corrected analyses indicated a lack of relationship between forebrain size and two indices of social complexity, namely mean or maximum flock size in the non-breeding season. Forebrain size was also unrelated to the propensity to flock. In contrast to primates, where the social complexity hypothesis was first proposed, it is conceivable that in birds social demands in the non-breeding season may be insufficient to drive brain size evolution. Future research could focus on the possibility that more specific areas of the avian brain are associated with group size and could be extended to cooperative breeding species that forage in more complex groups over much of the year.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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