Allometric inter-relationships between jaw musculature mass, skull size and body mass in <i>Psittaciformes</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Functional characteristics of the jaw apparatus, for example bite force, in vertebrates is a combination of the skeleton and the musculature. In birds, bite force has been measured directly or calculated using various methods including summation of forces generated by the different elements of the jaw musculature. However, there have been no reports of the relationships between body size with the mass of the different muscle groups in a closely related group of birds. This study explored allometry in the different jaw muscle masses from parrot (Psittaciformes) species differing in body mass by 40-fold. It was hypothesised that the different muscle masses would exhibit isometry with body mass and skull size. Parrot heads were dissected and the masses of the individual muscle complexes were recorded. Data were subjected to phylogenetically-controlled regression analysis to document scaling effects with body mass and skull size. Most, but not all muscles, exhibited positive allometry with body mass but most were isometric with skull size. Consequently, as parrots get bigger, their skulls get proportionally longer, but that the muscles within the head isometrically scaled relative to the size of these proportionally larger skulls. The large muscles imply greater bite forces in parrots than have been reported to date, which seems to be associated with an increase in skull size to accommodate more muscles. It is unknown whether this pattern is applicable to other birds within specific orders or even across birds as a whole. There needs to be further investigation into the allometry of the morphological and functional properties of the avian jaw musculature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".