Relationships of song structure to phylogenetic history, habitat, and morphology in the vireos, greenlets, and allies (Passeriformes: Vireonidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acoustic signals show immense variation among passerines, and several hypotheses have been proposed to explain this diversity. In this study, we tested, for the first time, the relationships of song structure to phylogeny, habitat type, and morphology in the vireos and allies (Vireonidae). Every measure of song structure considered in this study had moderate and significant phylogenetic signal. Furthermore, two song-constraining morphological traits, bill shape and body mass, also exhibited significant phylogenetic signal. Song length showed the largest within-clade similarity; longer songs were highly conserved in part of the greenlet (Hylophilus) clade, whereas shorter songs characterized the remaining seven genera. We found no differences in song structure among vireonids living in different habitat types. However, vireonids with shorter, stouter bills and larger bodies sang songs with lower minimum and maximum peak frequency, compared with species with longer, thinner bills and smaller bodies. We conclude that Vireonidae song evolution is driven partially by phylogenetically conserved morphological traits. Our findings support the phylogenetic signal and morphological constraints hypotheses explaining structural diversity in avian acoustic signals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
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".