MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bite performance and morphology in a population of Darwin's finches: implications for the evolution of beak shape

2005· article· en· W2170563223 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeakBiologyBite force quotientAllometryHead (geology)PopulationFinchZoologyAnatomyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Previous studies of the Medium Ground Finch, Geospiza fortis , have documented that selection is most severe under drought conditions, which generally favour beaks that are comparatively deep and narrow. Deep beaks are presumed to enhance a bird's ability to crack hard seeds, and narrow beaks have been proposed to enhance a bird's efficiency in manipulating seeds. In the present study, we make the first direct measurements of bite force in Darwin's finches. We used 147 G. fortis from Isla Santa Cruz, Galápagos, to document the influence of beak, head and body dimensions on bite force. Among the various beak dimensions, depth, width and shape were all significant predictors of bite force. Among the various head dimensions, width was the best predictor of bite force. Generally low predictive values of multiple regression models including all morphological variables, as well as positive allometric scaling of bite force on head width, suggest an important additional role for variation in muscle architecture or jaw biomechanics in bite force generation.

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.

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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.206 · 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