MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134883670 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1012

Genome size and wing parameters in passerine birds

2008· article· en· W2134883670 on OpenAlexafffund
Chandler B. Andrews, Stuart A. Mackenzie, T. Ryan Gregory

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsBirds CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsGenomeGenome sizePasserineBiologyWingEvolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeCell sizeGeneticsEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite their status as the most speciose group of terrestrial vertebrates, birds exhibit the smallest and least variable genome sizes among tetrapods. It has been suggested that this is because powered flight imposes metabolic constraints on cell size, and thus on genome size. This notion has been supported by analyses of genome size and cell size versus resting metabolic rate and other parameters across birds, but most previous studies suffer from one or more limitations that have left the question open. The present study provides new insights into this issue through an examination of newly measured genome sizes, nucleus and cell sizes, body masses and wing parameters for 74 species of birds in the order Passeriformes. A positive relationship was found between genome size and nucleus/cell size, as well as between genome size and wing loading index, which is interpreted as an indicator of adaptations for efficient flight. This represents the single largest dataset presented for birds to date, and is the first to analyse a distinctly flight-related parameter along with genome size using phylogenetic comparative analyses. The results lend additional support to the hypothesis that the small genomes of birds are indeed related in some manner to flight, though the mechanistic and historical bases for this association remain an interesting area of investigation.

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)0.000
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations81
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207