Viewing geometry affects sexual dichromatism and conspicuousness of noniridescent plumage of Swallow Tanagers (<i>Tersina viridis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some types of plumage color are difficult to characterize spectrophotometrically because the properties of the reflected light change with viewing geometry (i.e. the relative positions of the light source and the observer, and the orientation of the feather). This is the case for the noniridescent plumage coloration of the Swallow Tanager (Tersina viridis), which seems to change from a human perspective as the angle between the light source and the observer varies. In this study, we measured plumage reflectance with different angles of illumination and/or observation, and used avian visual models to evaluate the change in sexual dichromatism and conspicuousness with viewing geometry from a bird's perspective. We also calculated different color parameters to assess how these changed with viewing conditions. Sexual dichromatism showed large changes, with its maximum coinciding with the angle combination between illuminant and observer that produced both the highest conspicuousness for males and the highest crypsis for females. The conspicuousness of males also varied with viewing geometry, and was consistently less when viewed by the visual system of a potential avian predator (VS) than by that of a conspecific (UVS). The change in perceived coloration was mainly related to large variation in hue and chroma in the plumage of males as the relative angle between the illumination and observation probes changed. Our results show that viewing geometry can alter color perception, even for noniridescent plumage coloration. Therefore, the relative position of the light source and the observer should be considered in studies of avian visual communication, particularly for species with plumage coloration similar to that of Swallow Tanagers.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".