No evidence that songbirds use odour cues to avoid malaria-infected conspecifics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many animals have evolved mechanisms to detect and avoid parasitized conspecifics, primarily through odour cues, but whether birds are capable of odour-mediated parasite avoidance is unknown. Recently, we showed that exposing song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) to avian malaria parasites (Plasmodium sp.) alters the chemical composition of their preen oil, which is the major source of body odour in birds. Here, we presented song sparrows with preen oil from uninfected (sham-inoculated) and malaria-infected conspecifics, predicting that birds would spend more time with odour cues from uninfected than infected birds. Birds without detectable malarial infections spent about 50% more time with preen oil from uninfected than infected conspecifics, and females spent nearly twice as much time with preen oil from uninfected than infected conspecifics. However, neither difference was statistically significant. Song sparrows may be able to detect odour cues of infection, but further experiments are needed to confirm or refute this.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".