MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

VARIATION IN CAROTENOID-BASED COLOR IN NORTHERN FLICKERS IN A HYBRID ZONE

2002· article· en· W2157770008 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen L. Wiebe, Gary R. Bortolotti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Bulletin · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFeatherPlumageBiologyIntraspecific competitionZoologyFledgeHueCarotenoidHatchingPopulationEcologyBotanyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied variation in the carotenoid color of flight feathers of hybrid Northern Flickers (Colaptes auratus) and its correlation with reproductive performance and survival. Color scores provided by a digital camera revealed in 218 individuals a continuous spectrum from yellow to red. Males tended to be slightly redder than females. Within individuals, an analysis of color change with age revealed that males, but not females, became redder with age. Except for yearling females, body condition did not improve with age, suggesting that color is not linked to body condition measured during incubation. We did not detect any correlations between feather color and measures of reproductive performance, such as clutch size, hatching success, or fledging success, or return rate to the study area. In a hybrid population where intraspecific variation in color is controlled partly by genes, hue or brightness may not be a useful signal of individual quality, contrary to other studies of birds. About 25% of flickers had one or more tail feathers that differed from the rest of the plumage. In each case, the “odd” feathers were paler or yellower in color and may have been caused by diet or stress when the feathers were lost and regrown during winter. Such odd colors support the hypothesis that red carotenoid pigments are costly to maintain under stressful conditions.

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 score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson BulletinSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207