A geometric morphometric appraisal of beak shape in Darwin’s finches
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
Beak size and shape in Darwin's finches have traditionally been quantified using a few univariate measurements (length, depth, width). Here we show the improved inferential resolution of geometric morphometric methods, as applied to three hierarchical levels: (i) among seven species on Santa Cruz Island, (ii) among different sites on Santa Cruz for a single species (Geospiza fortis), and (iii) between large and small beak size morphs of G. fortis at one site (El Garrapatero). Our results support previous studies in finding an axis of shape variation (long/shallow/pointy vs. short/deep/blunt) that separates many of the species. We also detect additional differences among species in the relative sizes and positions of the upper and lower mandibles and in curvature of the mandibles. Small-scale, but potentially relevant, shape variation was also detected among G. fortis from different sites and between sympatric beak size morphs. These results suggest that adaptation to different resources might contribute to diversification on a single island.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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