Does feeding zone influence egg size in slow-breeding seabirds?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In several bird species, mothers that endow their eggs with additional resources benefit from more rapid development and more robust offspring. We examined egg size and associated life-history traits in 44 species of the slow-breeding procellariiform seabirds (albatrosses and petrels). The far distant foraging of some of the species should subject them to difficult ecological conditions and perhaps delays in return to the nest. Such delays might lead to poorer egg care by the remaining parent. To compensate, we predicted a positive association of egg size with foraging zone (offshore, near pelagic, far pelagic), and both with the length of incubation shifts. We tested this hypothesis and also examined egg size and fitness-related reproductive traits. Egg size scaled significantly and tightly with female body mass (β = 0.72, R2 = 0.98). After influences of both size and phylogeny were removed, however, egg size was positively and significantly associated with both mean length of incubation shift and feeding zone (r = 0.45 and 0.46, respectively), perhaps indicating a life-history syndrome of egg size, incubation, and distance that species go to forage during the breeding season, and supporting the compensation hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".