MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401025109 · doi:10.1111/ibi.13350

Estimating the mass of the Great Auk (<i>Pinguinus impennis</i>) and its egg

2024· article· en· W4401025109 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Montgomerie, T. R. Birkhead

Bibliographic record

VenueIbis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonExtinction eventZoologyEcologyGeographyBiologyDemographyBiological dispersalEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The body mass and egg mass of the Great Auk Pinguinus impennis were never measured before the bird was driven to extinction in 1844. Previous studies conducted before 1990 used data from related species to estimate the mass of an adult bird at 4500–5000 g, and the fresh mass of its egg as 327–372 g. In the present study, we use a larger dataset of measurements from extant alcids, and statistical methods that control for the effects of phylogeny, to provide new estimates for those traits. The presumed body mass of the Great Auk was initially derived from a hearsay report from the 19th century, and then supported by subsequent comparative analyses based on skeletal measurements. Our new best estimates from currently available data show that the Great Auk's body mass was probably closer to 3560 g and its fresh egg mass was about 350 g. This new body mass estimate is the average of predictions from independent regressions of body mass on (1) tibiotarsus and femur lengths (3441 g) and (2) egg volume (3681 g). We calculated the Great Auk's fresh egg mass from a regression of fresh egg mass on egg volume in the extant alcids. Providing more accurate estimates of the body and egg mass of Great Auk can inform speculation about the developmental mode, ecology and life history of this iconic, extinct species.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIbisSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207