MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136277165 · doi:10.1002/ar.22815

Comparison of eye morphology and retinal topography in two species of new world vultures (Aves: Cathartidae)

2013· article· en· W2136277165 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas J. Lisney, Karyn Stecyk, Jeffrey Kolominsky, Gary R. Graves, Douglas R. Wylie, Andrew N. Iwaniuk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaQueen's UniversityU.S. Department of AgricultureSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsMorphology (biology)ZoologyRetinalBiologyGeographyOptometryMedicineBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vultures are highly reliant on their sensory systems for the rapid detection and localization of carrion before other scavengers can exploit the resource. In this study, we compared eye morphology and retinal topography in two species of New World vultures (Cathartidae), turkey vultures (Cathartes aura), with a highly developed olfactory sense, and black vultures (Coragyps atratus), with a less developed sense of olfaction. We found that eye size relative to body mass was the same in both species, but that black vultures have larger corneas relative to eye size than turkey vultures. However, the overall retinal topography, the total number of cells in the retinal ganglion cell layer, peak and average cell densities, cell soma area frequency distributions, and the theoretical peak anatomical spatial resolving power were the same in both species. This suggests that the visual systems of these two species are similar and that vision plays an equally important role in the biology of both species, despite the apparently greater reliance on olfaction for finding carrion in turkey vultures.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.261 · 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.

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

Citations67
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207