Revisiting the condition‐dependence of melanin‐based plumage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".