Preformative molt, plumage maturation, and age criteria for 7 species of manakins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed aging criteria for 7 species of manakins (Pipridae) from the Manu Biosphere Reserve, Peru, based on patterns of plumage maturation and wing-feather replacement following their preformative molt, and summarize information on their morphological characteristics. Each species underwent a partial preformative molt, which could be identified using the presence of molt limits in the greater coverts. Some male Band-tailed Manakin (Pipra fasciicauda), Round-tailed Manakin (Ceratopipra chloromeros), Cerulean-capped Manakin (Lepidothrix coeruleocapilla), and Yungas Manakin (Chiroxiphia boliviana) showed evidence of delayed plumage maturation, allowing for age classification up to the third annual cycle, whereas Blue-crowned Manakin (L. coronata caelestipileata), Fiery-capped Manakin (Machaeropterus pyrocephalus), and Green Manakin (Cryptopipo holochlora viridor) appeared to attain definitive plumage after their second molt cycle. Morphometrics showed strong overlap and were less useful for separation of age and sex classes. Our findings add to the growing list of studies that suggest many tropical passerines can be aged using primarily molt limits. Data on molt and plumage maturation are still needed for the vast majority of tropical birds in order to inform conservation-based research and studies of avian life history.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".