Sex and seasonal differences in neurogenesis and volume of the song‐control system are associated with song in brood‐parasitic and non‐brood‐parasitic icterid songbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The song-control system in the brain of songbirds is important for the production and acquisition of song and exhibits both remarkable seasonal plasticity and some of the largest neural sex differences observed in vertebrates. We measured sex and seasonal differences in two nuclei of the song-control system of brood-parasitic brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) and closely-related non-parasitic red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). These species differ in both the development and function of song. Brown-headed cowbirds have a larger sex difference in song than red-winged blackbirds. Female cowbirds never sing, whereas female blackbirds do though much less than males. In cowbirds, song primarily functions in mate choice and males modify their song as they approach sexual maturity and interact with females. In red-winged blackbirds, song is used primarily in territorial defence and is crystalized earlier in life. We found that the HVC was more likely to be discernable in breeding female blackbirds than in breeding female cowbirds. Compared to males, females had a smaller HVC and a smaller robust nucleus of the arcopallium (RA). However, females had higher doublecortin immunoreactivity (DCX+) in HVC, a measure of neurogenesis. Consistent with sex differences in song, the sex difference in RA volume was greater in cowbirds than in blackbirds. Males of both species had a smaller HVC with higher DCX+ in post-breeding condition than in breeding condition when song is more plastic. Sex and seasonal differences in the song-control system were closely related to variation in song in these two icterid songbirds. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Develop Neurobiol 76: 1226-1240, 2016.
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".