Conspecific brood parasitism and egg rejection in Great‐tailed Grackles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we tested whether conspecific brood parasitism (CBP) has selected for egg rejection behavior in the colonial Great‐tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus . No evidence of CBP was recorded at 797 Great‐tailed Grackle nests, and we did not induce CBP by experimentally removing nests while grackles were laying. We determined experimentally that Great‐tailed Grackles are determinate layers, an attribute opposite to that sometimes associated with CBP. Despite the absence of CBP, Great‐tailed Grackles rejected 8% of experimentally introduced conspecific eggs, rarely rejecting or damaging their own eggs. Conspecific eggs added to nests during incubation tended to be rejected more frequently than eggs switched between nests, and eggs that differed the most from the host's eggs tended to be rejected sooner. There was no relationship between rejection and the stage of the nest cycle when experimental parasitism occurred; however, eggs were rejected faster when added during the prelaying and incubation stages than during laying. Evidence suggests, therefore, that egg rejection behavior in Great‐tailed Grackles has not evolved in response to CBP.
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) | 0.006 | 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".