MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508990805

Parental behaviour and brood integrity in amalgamated broods of the Common Eider

2000· article· en· W1508990805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guy Beauchamp

Bibliographic record

VenueWildfowl (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEiderBroodPaternal careForagingBiologyEcologySocialityVigilance (psychology)FledgeZoologyEthogramZebra finchPredationOffspring
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-hatch brood amalgamation was examined in the Common Eider (Somateria mollissima) along the shorelines of the St. Lawrence estuary, Qubec, Canada.Broods typically contained a large number of ducklings and several females in attendance.The amount of time allocated to foraging, vigilance, and other activities by brooding females failed to vary as a function of the number of ducklings, in addition, abandoned ducklings were readily adopted by brooding females suggesting that parental care is not constrained by the presence of additional ducklings.Parental behaviour also varied little in response to the presence of additional females.Preening on shore, however, increased in frequency with the number of females perhaps because broods aggregated more often in safer sites.Losses of ducklings occurred in several broods in one of three ways: ( 1 ) when ducklings straggled behind during foraging activities, (2) when broods aggregated temporarily and more rarely (3) when females voluntarily abandoned ducklings.Such losses suggest that integrity may be difficult to maintain in amalgamated broods.The extent to which lost ducklings are predisposed to be abandoned as a result of sickness or severe malnutrition, for instance, remains to be investigated.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildfowl (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust)Same topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207