Potential Influence of Egg Location on Synchrony of Hatching of Precocial Birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the onset of incubation prior to completion of the clutch leads to developmental asynchrony of the embryos, waterfowl eggs tend to hatch synchronously (within 3–24 hr). The mechanisms waterfowl use to synchronize development of embryos and allow for synchronous hatching are still not well understood. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed, including vocalization by embryos, egg size, egg constituents, and developmental asynchrony at hatching. Empirical evidence for any of these mechanisms, however, is limited for species that lay large clutches (>6 eggs). We hypothesize that the eggs' position within the clutch may synchronize development of embryos of dabbling ducks that lay clutches large enough that central and peripheral eggs may be distinguished. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the developmental stage of central and peripheral eggs and testing for a relationship between the order in which an egg was laid and its position (central or peripheral) within the clutch. We found that eggs laid later were central more often than expected if their distribution were random and that during the first 12 days of incubation central eggs tended to be less developed than peripheral eggs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".