MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033923829 · doi:10.1139/z03-162

Tests of two functions of alarm calls given by yellow warblers during nest defence

2003· article· en· W2033923829 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sharon A. Gill, Spencer G. Sealy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)Nesting (process)BiologyAlarm signalALARMEcologyPredationBrood parasiteAnimal communicationBroodNest boxZoologyHost (biology)EngineeringParasitism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During nest defence, yellow warblers (Dendroica petechia) give "seet" and "chip" calls. Seet calls are given preferentially toward brood parasitic brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) during the yellow warblers' egg-laying period, whereas chip calls are given toward mammalian and avian nest predators throughout the nesting period. In this study, we investigated two possible functions of seet and chip calls during nest defence by playing alarm calls to nesting yellow warblers. We tested whether nest owners give seet and chip calls during defence to alert their offspring and their mates about nest threats and, in the latter case, whether the alarm calls differ in function depending on nesting stage. In response to playbacks, nestlings remained inactive for a significantly longer period when chip calls were played than when seet calls were played. Female yellow warblers returned to their nesting areas more quickly when seet calls were played than when chip calls were played, but pairs were equally likely to return to the nesting area in response to both call types. These findings suggests that both seet and chip calls alert mates but that only chip calls function to alert nestlings of potential danger.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations52
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207