Relative Brain Size Is Not Correlated with Display Complexity in Manakins: A Reanalysis of Lindsay et al. (2015)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
some species [Prum, 1990, 1994]. Lindsay et al. [2015] hypothesized that a more complex acrobatic display will result in an increased demand of neural computation and, therefore, an increase in brain size. Their analyses yielded a positive correlation between relative brain size and display complexity (fig. 2 in Lindsay et al. [2015]). However, their analyses have several potential problems, and alternative methods that correct these problems lead to different conclusions. The most significant issue is how relative brain size was calculated. The brain, like most organs and other physiological traits (e.g. basal metabolic rate) scales positively with body size [Gould, 1966, 1974; Martin and Harvey, 1986], and it is traditionally understood that the relative size of the brain (or any other trait) is one where the allometric effect of body size has been removed. The issue regarding the best methods for removing allometric effect in comparative studies has been given careful consideration in the literature [McCoy et al., 2006; Berner, 2011], including papers that specifically discuss the brain or its parts [Deaner et al., 2000]. Whichever method is deemed most appropriate, it is clear that the relative size of the brain (or any other organ) should not be correlated with body size [Deaner et al., 2000; Sol et Over the past 20 years, there has been an explosion of comparative studies looking to understand the driving forces behind brain evolution [Striedter, 2005]. Generally, in these studies variation in the size or morphology of the brain, or specific brain regions, has been associated with a long list of different behavioral, ecological and/or morphological characters [for a review, see Healy and Rowe, 2007]. Along with the surge in such comparative studies of brain and brain region sizes, there has been a parallel development of phylogenetic comparative methods [Garamszegi, 2014a]. Since recognizing that species do not constitute independent data points, an assumption that is inherent to most traditional statistical tests [Felsenstein, 1985; Harvey and Pagel, 1991], statistics that include phylogenetic information have been developed at an increasingly fast pace. This has resulted in disagreements on what are the best statistical methods to apply in different comparative studies, along with some degree of confusion on how to proceed. In the March 2015 issue of Brain, Behavior and Evolution , Lindsay et al. [2015] published a study on brain size variation in manakins (Pipridae), a family of passerine birds that exhibit remarkable variation in courtship displays, including complex, dance-like, acrobatic courtship displays in Published online: June 4, 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it