MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988717693 · doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlz110

Prehistoric avifaunas from the Kingdom of Tonga

2019· article· en· W2988717693 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor H. Worthy, David V. Burley

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPacific and Southeast Asian Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaunaBiologyTaxonGenusPrehistoryPleistoceneZoologyArchaeologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Avifaunas derived from Lapita archaeological sites excavated between 2004 and 2014 from four sites in the Vava'u Group and two on Tongatapu, Kingdom of Tonga are described, revealing birds encountered by the first human arrivals. A total of 741 identifiable bones revealed 24 avian taxa, among which terrestrial birds, especially rails, pigeons and parrots, were the most abundant. At a minimum, eight taxa, or 50% of the original non-passerine land bird diversity in the sample, are globally extinct. These include two megapodes (Megapodius alimentum and a larger unnamed megapode), three pigeons (a large Caloenas sp. indet., Didunculus placopedetes and Ducula shutleri sp. nov.), two rails (Hypotaenidia vavauensis sp. nov. and an unnamed one) and the parrot Eclectus infectus. The rail H. vavauensis was restricted to Vava'u and was flightless, with reduced wings, and larger than Hypotaenidia woodfordi of the Solomons, the largest congener hitherto found in the Pacific. The pigeon Du. shutleri was volant, but was the largest species in its genus and was widespread in the Kingdom. The evolution of Tongan avifaunas is related to varying ages (Pliocene to Pleistocene) of the island groups, where geological youth apparently precluded true giantism in the fauna.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesFrench-language works237,207