MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043703219 · doi:10.1093/icb/icaa108

Neural Circuits Underlying Nest Building in Male Zebra Finches

2020· article· en· W3043703219 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie C Edwards, Zachary J. Hall, Eira Ihalainen, Valerie Bishop, Elisa T Nicklas, Susan D. Healy, Simone Meddle

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersErasmus+Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMarie CurieBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesSociety for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB)
KeywordsTaeniopygiaVentral tegmental areaNest (protein structural motif)Stria terminalisNest boxZebra finchBiologyNeuroscienceZoologyDopaminergicHypothalamusDopamine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nest building consists of a series of motor actions, which are concomitant with activity in regions of the anterior motor pathway, the social behavior network, and the reward circuity in nest building adult male zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata). It is not clear, however, whether this activity is due to nest building, collection, and/or manipulation of nest material. To identify which areas of the brain are specifically involved, we used immunohistochemistry to quantify the immediate early gene c-Fos in male zebra finches that were nest building (Building), birds given a nest box but could interact only with tied down nest material (Fixed), and birds that were not given a nest box or nest material (Control). We investigated the following brain regions: the anterior motor pathway (anterior ventral mesopallium [AMV], AN, anterior striatum [ASt]), areas of the social behavior network (bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, dorsomedial subdivision [BSTmd], lateral septum [LS]), the dopaminergic reward circuitry (ventral tegmental area), and the cerebellum. We found that there was greater Fos immunoreactivity expression in the BSTmd, LS, and AMV with increased material deposition; in LS, AMV ASt, and Folium VI with increased material carrying; in LS, AMV, and ASt with increased nest material tucking; and in LS and all folia (except Folium VIII) with increased tugging at tied down material. These data confirm a functional role for areas of the anterior motor pathway, social behavior network, and the cerebellum in nest material collection and manipulation by birds.

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)0.000
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 score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.121 · 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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207