Between-population differences in nestling size and hematocrit level in blue tits (<i>Parus caeruleus</i>): a cross-fostering test for genetic and environmental effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Geographically separated populations may diverge genetically in response to differing environmental conditions. Two populations of blue tits (Parus caeruleus L., 1758) that inhabit distinct valleys in northern Corsica are exposed to extreme differences in food abundance and parasite loads and show differences in nestling mass and hematocrit levels at fledging. We used partial cross-fostering coupled with experimental manipulation of parasite loads to test the hypothesis that between-population differences in nestling mass and hematocrit reflect adaptive genetic responses to differing parasite prevalence. Although asymptotic mass and hematocrit were strongly affected by variation in parasite loads and caterpillar abundance, we did not detect any significant genetic (population of origin) effect or genotype–environment interaction. We conclude that in these populations of blue tits, asymptotic mass and hematocrit are phenotypically plastic traits that are primarily set by environmental conditions during the sensitive growth phase.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".