MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025723852 · doi:10.1676/05-027.1

WITHIN-PAIR INTERACTIONS AND PARENTAL BEHAVIOR OF CERULEAN WARBLERS BREEDING IN EASTERN ONTARIO

2006· article· en· W2025723852 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer J. Barg, Jason Jones, Michelle Girvan, Raleigh J. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarblerNest (protein structural motif)BiologyPredationEcologyIncubationPaternal careZoologyOffspringHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea) is currently the focus of considerable management interest; however, our ability to develop effective management strategies is hampered by a dearth of life history and basic behavioral data. Here, we present information on male-female interactions of Cerulean Warblers and parental nest attentiveness that is, to our knowledge, among the first such rigorously collected data for this species. Males feed females during nest building and on the nest during incubation; the relative infrequency of these events suggests that they play more of a role in pair-bond maintenance than they do in enhancing female energetics. Female incubation rhythms were not significantly influenced by temperature, time of day, or egg age. Compared with other Dendroica warblers, we observed relatively infrequent female departures during incubation, perhaps in response to a high risk of nest predation. As the nestlings aged, females spent less time brooding nestlings, presumably to allow for more frequent feeding; however, both males and females exhibited relatively low rates of food delivery compared with other Dendroica warblers. Despite the low rates of food delivery, feeding trips were more frequent at successful nests than unsuccessful nests. Our results suggest that Cerulean Warblers are tightly constrained by the competing pressures of predation risk and sufficient food provisioning for nestlings.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207