MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569323652

When nesting involves two sequential, mutually exclusive activities: What's a mother to do?

2007· article· en· W1569323652 on OpenAlexaff
Jason H. Peterson, Bernard D. Roitberg, Ronald C. Ydenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueSocio-Environmental Systems Modeling · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroodNest (protein structural motif)ProvisioningParental investmentBiologyOffspringInvestment (military)ClosenessEcologyAffect (linguistics)Reproductive valueDemographyPsychologyComputer scienceCommunicationMathematicsPregnancyTelecommunications
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Parents can invest in offspring through a variety of behaviours, some of which trade off against each other, such as investment in the current brood versus investment in a future one. Question: When should hymenopteran parents stop provisioning the current nest and decide whether to seal the entrance to the nest (e.g. with a number of leaf pieces)? Method and key assumptions: A dynamic state variable model. We assume that mothers alter reproductive decisions based on their perception of costs and benefits of brood cell and nest construction. Some of these construction behaviours allocate investment at one or a few offspring in a brood but others affect the entire brood. Conclusions: Several factors impact the decisions of when to cease provisioning new offspring and whether to seal the nest. Higher current nest value and greater risk of mortality increase the likelihood of both ceasing provisioning earlier and sealing the nest. The greater the benefit of sealing, either because of increased benefits or decreased negative impacts, the earlier and the more frequently it occurs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocio-Environmental Systems ModelingSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207