MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Revisiting the condition‐dependence of melanin‐based plumage

2013· article· en· W2123562223 on OpenAlex
Sarah Guindre‐Parker, Oliver P. Love

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlumageBiologyMelaninAchromatic lensOrnamentsTraitEvolutionary biologyZoologyGeneticsOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Support against the condition‐dependence of melanin plumage signals has relied on data from species exhibiting both melanin‐ and carotenoid‐based plumage ornaments. As the mechanisms leading to variation in carotenoid‐ and melanin‐based plumage differ fundamentally, these systems may not be ideal to assess the condition‐dependence of melanin signals. Instead, we hypothesized that melanin‐plumage is more likely to signal condition in purely achromatic species. We performed a meta‐analysis reviewing evidence for condition‐dependent melanic plumage: we compared the net effect size for the relationship between melanin traits and condition in species that are achromatic versus species that also display a carotenoid‐based trait. Our results indicate that melanin plumage is condition‐dependent in species of both plumage types. Contrarily to our prediction, this finding suggests that melanin ornament condition‐dependence is not conditional on the context of other ornaments within a species. Instead, melanin ornaments should be viewed as potential condition‐dependent signals in all species.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.926
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.233 · 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