Habitat Quality, Social Dominance and Dawn Chorus Song Output in Black‐Capped Chickadees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Individuals that settle in poor habitats may reduce resource investments in various life history traits; for example, resources may be withheld from costly advertisement signals. There may be geographic variation in advertisement levels that correspond with habitat quality; however, this is poorly documented and it is unclear whether such habitat effects have consequences for the function of mate‐choice signals within habitats. We examined song output of male black‐capped chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) during the dawn chorus in two contrasting habitats (mature forest vs. young forest) known to differ in quality. Dominance rank is indicative of phenotypic quality in this species and was assessed during the preceding winter. We measured the song output of males participating in the dawn chorus during the nesting/egg laying period. Males living in young forest had reduced song output; however, a habitat–rank interaction term showed that dominant birds accounted for most of this difference. This suggests that signal reliability might be lost in poor habitats. We generate several hypotheses to explain these findings.
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".