The mistaken manakin: a new genus-group name for Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The White-crowned Manakin Pipra pipra was long considered congeneric with other members of the genus Pipra, until Prum (1990, 1992, 1994) demonstrated that its display repertoire and syringeal morphology differ considerably from all other members of that genus. Subsequently, three different molecular phylogenies have all indicated that this manakin is more closely related to the genus Machaeropterus than to Pipra. Prum (1992) considered that the name Dixiphia Reichenbach, 1850, was available, and thus the combination Dixiphia pipra has since been in widespread use for this species. However, as first recognized more than 150 years ago, Dixiphia is a junior synonym of Arundinicola d'Orbigny, 1840. We show that no genus-group name is available for the manakin originally described as Parus pipra Linnaeus, 1758, and for which we therefore provide a new genus name.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".