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
Abstract The House Finch is among the most mundane birds, so ubiquitous and familiar across the U.S. and Canada that it does not rate a glance from most bird enthusiasts. But males have carotenoid-based plumage coloration that varies markedly among individuals, making the House Finch a model species for studies of the function and evolution of colorful plumage. In more depth and detail than has been attempted for any species of bird, this book takes a tour of the hows and whys of ornamental plumage coloration. The book begins by reviewing the history of the study of colorful plumage, which began in earnest with the debates of Darwin and Wallace but which was largely forgotten by the middle of the 20th century. Documenting the extensive plumage variation among males both within and between populations of House Finches, the book explores the mechanisms behind plumage variation and looks at the fitness consequences of condition-dependent ornament display for both males and females. The book concludes by examining the processes by which carotenoid-based ornamental coloration may have evolved.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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