Anatomical description of neornithine stomach with implications on neornithine stomach morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neornithines, the most diversified extant tetrapods, have been a classic example for understanding form-function relationships, particularly in the context of the interaction between dietary ecology and neornithine phenotypic evolution. While the previous studies have primarily focused on beak morphology, the significance of the neornithine stomach, which serves as a functional analog of mammalian dentition, is expected to play an important role as well. However, current knowledge on neornithine stomachs is predominantly biased toward poultry and birds of prey, leading to a significant underappreciation of its impact on macroevolution. Here, we provide detailed descriptions of neornithine stomachs represented by 115 species of major orders and test if and how neornithine stomachs are related to their dietary ecology. We identified four morphotypes among neornithine stomachs, which are strongly constrained phylogenetically. While the neornithine diet demonstrates strong associations with stomach morphotypes, the associations are small or absent when accounting for the phylogeny in statistical evaluations. Similarly, the neornithine diet has negligible effects on their ventriculus mass under the analyses with phylogenetic correction. The results resemble a recent finding that a neornithine diet has no effect on intestine length when accounting for phylogeny, but rather flight performance does. Thus, the present study further supports the previous findings that dietary specialization in neornithine birds closely follows phylogeny, making functional convergence across taxa difficult to detect.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".