Ectoparasitic blow flies (<i>Protocalliphora</i> sp.) and nestling Eastern Bluebirds (<i>Sialia sialis</i>): direct effects and compensatory strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Variation in environmental factors such as parasitism can have direct effects on an organism’s fitness. Because parasites draw resources directly from their hosts, they are expected to have negative effects; however, several nestling host – parasite systems show no evidence of direct effects. Absence of direct effects may be explained by compensation strategies used by parents or nestlings themselves. In this study evidence for both direct effects and compensatory strategies in a blow fly (genus Protocalliphora Hough, 1899) – Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis (L., 1758)) system were examined. Nestlings showed no direct effects of blow flies on survival and on size at fledging; however, parasitized broods were significantly anemic. There was no evidence for compensation by parents in the form of brood reduction and there was no support for compensation by nestlings via a hierarchy of tissue preservation. Nestlings did compensate for parasitism by accelerating growth at the end of the nestling period and delaying fledging.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".