Effects of sex and seasonality on the song control system and FoxP2 protein expression in black‐capped chickadees (<scp><i>P</i></scp><i>oecile atricapillus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plasticity in behavior is mirrored by corresponding plasticity in the brain in many songbird species. In some species, song system nuclei (Phillmore et al. [2006]: J Neurobiol 66:1002-1010) are larger in birds in breeding condition than birds in nonbreeding condition, possibly due to increased vocal output in spring. FOXP2, a transcription factor associated with language expression and comprehension in humans and song learning in songbirds, also shows plasticity. FoxP2 expression in songbird Area X, a region important for sensorimotor integration, is related to developmental and adult vocal plasticity (Teramitsu et al. [2010]: J Neurosci 24:3152-3163, Chen et al. [2013], J Exp Biol 216:3682-3692). In this study, we examined whether sex and breeding condition affects both song control system volume (HVC, X) and FoxP2 protein expression in black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus). HVC volume was larger in males in breeding condition than males in nonbreeding condition, but there were no sex differences. In contrast, Area X volume was larger in males than females, regardless of breeding condition, likely reflecting that male and female chickadees produce learned chick-a-dee calls year round, but output of the learned song increases in breeding males. FoxP2 protein levels did not differ between sexes or breeding condition when calculated as a ratio of labeled cells in Area X to labeled cells in the surrounding striato-pallium, however, absolute density of FoxP2 in both regions was higher in males than in females. This may indicate that chickadees maintain a level of FoxP2 necessary for plasticity year-round, but males have greater potential for plasticity compared to females.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".