Temporal overlap and repeatability of feather corticosterone levels: practical considerations for use as a biomarker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) that were moulted and regrown concurrently and therefore expected to have similar CORT levels. Specifically, we compared the same feather from the left and right wing (moulted symmetrically) and different types of feathers (wing, back and tail) expected to have been moulted within the same time period. We found that larger, heavier feathers held more CORT per unit length. In addition, we found a lack of concordance in CORT levels both within the same feather type and between different feather types, even after taking into account differences in feather density. Our results indicate that naturally grown feathers may not consistently provide an indication of stress status. Additionally, conflict in results may arise depending on the feather assayed, and total feather volume may be an important consideration when interpreting feather CORT levels. Future work is necessary to determine explicitly the mechanisms of CORT deposition, the effects of environmental exposure and feather wear on the permanence of the feather CORT signal, and the influence of responses to wild stressors on feather CORT levels, before feather CORT can be implemented effectively as a tool for ecological and conservation applications.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".