MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131691676 · doi:10.1071/mu01020

Structural changes in the lyrate feathers in the development of the tail plumage of the Superb Lyrebird, <i>Menura novaehollandiae</i>

2004· article· en· W2131691676 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. H. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEmu - Austral Ornithology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumageFeatherBiologyZoologyFluctuating asymmetryCurvatureFlight featherAnatomyMoultingEcologyGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tail plumage of the Superb Lyrebird, Menura novaehollandiae, proceeds through a succession of annual moults over about eight years for the male and about seven for the female in which the feathers change in dimensions, shape, structure and pigmentation. Male lyrates increase in length from 245 mm to ∼700 mm, and in weight from 0.37 g to 2.4 g; adult female lyrates are ∼305 mm long and weigh 0.55 g; but details vary from bird to bird. The asymmetry (defined in paper) of the first two generations of lyrates is low, but increases at each generation. The shape of the feather is determined by the lengths of the barbs in both vanes and the angle of growth, and the curvature pattern of the shaft, which is curved concave to the long axis of the bird over the proximal part and convex over the distal part. The degree of curvature is greatest in the distal part and increases as the bird matures. Lyrates have yellow-orange-brown bars along the inner vane; the number increases from 16 for the second generation to 20–25 at maturity; adult female lyrates have 8–12 bars. Lyrebirds from Sherbrooke Forest differ from one another in the details of the properties studied; lyrates from other districts had characteristics that fell within the ranges of values for the Sherbrooke birds. The data for a particular mature male bird from Healesville indicate that, once a male bird has matured, the dimensions and structural details remain (practically) unchanged. The lyrates of adult females from different districts differed in some respects, but were similar in others.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.251
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmu - Austral OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207