MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969889480 · doi:10.1080/03014223.2000.9518240

Genetic monogamy mirrors social monogamy in the Fiordland crested penguin

2000· article· en· W1969889480 on OpenAlexaff
Ian G. McLean, Stephanie D. Kayes, Jan O. Murie, Lloyd S. Davis, David M. Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrood parasiteBiologyPhilopatryNest (protein structural motif)ZoologyBroodEcologyIntraspecific competitionMinisatelliteParasitismDemographyBiological dispersalMicrosatelliteGeneticsPopulationHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fiordland crested penguins ( Eudyptes pachyrhynchus , henceforth tawaki) are restricted to the southwest coast of South Island, New Zealand where they nest in small isolated colonies of <25 pairs. Tawaki are socially monogamous and adults are philopatric: pair‐bonds last some years, both resident adults participate in brooding and feeding of young, and birds regularly return to the same nest site or colony between years. To test whether tawaki are genetically as well as socially monogamous we assessed parentage in 24 families using multilocus minisatellite DNA fingerprinting. The DNA profiles of chicks were directly attributable to the resident male and female. There was no evidence supporting intraspecific brood parasitism or extra‐pair fertilisations, although maternal attribution of one chick was ambiguous. Social monogamy appears to indicate genetic monogamy in this species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of ZoologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207