MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163083646 · doi:10.1139/z01-065

Variation in colour within a population of northern flickers: a new perspective on an old hybrid zone

2001· article· en· W2163083646 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Karen L. Wiebe, G. R. Bortolotti

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyFeatherPopulationOrange (colour)HybridSubspeciesAssortative matingZoologyMatingBotanyDemographyHorticulture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a digital camera to quantify the colour of the tail feathers of 245 northern flickers (Colaptes auratus) in central British Columbia and investigate the frequency of colour morphs in the population of hybrids. The colour values generated by the camera corresponded well to the conventional method of ranking colours by eye, but was advantageous because it provided finer discrimination and a continuous colour variable. Rectrix colour varied in a continuum from the yellow of C. a. auratus to the red of C. a. cafer. By experimentally exposing red and yellow feathers to sunlight we showed that the intermediate orange colours were not a result of secondary fading of the carotenoid pigments. The distribution of colours in the population was bimodal. A paucity of intermediate phenotypes (orange birds) could not be explained by their mortality because return rates of birds to our study area was not associated with colour. New immigrants into the population tended to resemble parental types more often than hybrids. Assortative mating by colour in this population may tend to keep the subspecies separate, contrary to the situation in more southerly areas of the hybrid zone.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207