Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theoretical models suggest that sibling competition should select for conspicuous begging signals. If so, begging intensity might be expected to increase with the number of competitiors. The purpose of our study was to examine the relationship between begging intensity and brood size using nestling tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) as our model. Over 2 years, we videotaped begging behavior in unmanipulated broods of different sizes. We found that begging intensity increased with brood size. The average weight of nestlings in each brood did not vary with brood size, but feeding rate per nestling decreased with brood size, suggesting that nestlings in larger broods begged more intensively, possibly because they were hungrier. We also conducted an experiment to examine the effect of nest mates on begging in different-sized broods. We found that nestlings with similar weights, previous competitive environments, and food deprivation begged more intensively in large broods than in small broods. Overall, our study indicates that begging intensity increases with brood size in tree swallows. This relationship may result from interactions among brood mates rather than from lower feeding rates to individual nestlings in larger broods.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".