Song repertoire size varies with HVC volume and is indicative of male quality in song sparrows (<i>Melospiza melodia</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complex birdsong is a classic example of a sexually selected ornamental trait. In many species, females prefer males with large song repertoires, possibly because repertoire size is limited by the size of song control nuclei which reflect developmental success. We investigated whether song repertoire size was indicative of brain area and male quality in song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) by determining if repertoire size was related to the volume of song control nucleus HVC, as well as several morphological, immunological and genetic indices of quality. We found that males with large repertoires had larger HVCs and were in better body condition. They also had lower heterophil to lymphocyte ratios, indicating less physiological stress and a robust immune system as measured by the number of lymphocytes per red blood cell. Song repertoire size also tended to increase with neutral-locus genetic diversity, as assessed by mean d2, but was not related to internal relatedness. Our results suggest several mechanisms that might explain the finding of a recent study that song sparrows with large song repertoires have higher lifetime fitness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".