MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987152154 · doi:10.1139/z02-033

The relationship between song performance and male quality in snow buntings (<i>Plectrophenax nivalis</i>)

2002· article· en· W1987152154 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
E Hofstad, Yngve Espmark, Arne Moksnes, Tommy Haugan, Morten Ingebrigtsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådDet Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab
KeywordsBiologyBuntingMatingSnowEcologyZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attracting females is considered to be one of the main functions of bird song. Both the rate and complexity of male song are assumed to be reliable, quality-related cues that may be used by the female when choosing a mate. In this study of the snow bunting (Plectrophenax nivalis) on Svalbard, both these song parameters were considered as possible quality indicators for the female. Owing to the challenging environmental conditions in the High Arctic, a high degree of male effort is probably necessary to successfully raise the clutch. Male song rate and song complexity were therefore predicted to be correlated with early mating, male feeding rate during the female's incubation, male feeding rate during the nestling stage, and the number of fledglings produced. Although song length tended to be positively associated with the number of fledged young, the different song complexity parameters did not show any clear association with the onset of breeding, the male's food provisioning rate, and the number of fledglings. However, the song rate was significantly correlated with early mating, and there was a positive, although not significant, correlation between song rate and the rate at which older chicks were fed by the male. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that females might use male song rate to assess male quality and ability to participate in raising chicks.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207