MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045380921 · doi:10.1111/1365-2656.12255

Ecological generalism and behavioural innovation in birds: technical intelligence or the simple incorporation of new foods?

2014· article· en· W2045380921 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Ducatez, Joanne Clavel, Louis Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation FyssenCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcologySimple (philosophy)BiologyGeographyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generalist species are more successful than specialists in anthropogenically modified environments or in environments in which they have been introduced, but the nature of the link between generalism and establishment success is unclear. A higher feeding innovation rate has previously been reported in habitat generalist birds from North America. By allowing them to exploit new resources, this higher feeding innovation rate might explain the generalists' advantage. This result might be due to generalists being more likely to find new resources because they are exposed to more diverse environmental conditions. Alternatively, they might differ from specialists in other traits, in particular cognitive skills that might allow them to innovate more complex food searching and handling techniques. To test these hypotheses, we separated avian feeding innovations into a 'technical' (novel searching and handling behaviour) and a 'food type' (incorporation of a new food in a species' diet) category. Technical innovations, but not food type innovations, have previously been shown to correlate with avian brain size, suggesting they reflect cognitive ability. We used a world-wide data base of 2339 feeding innovations recorded in the literature, covering a total of 765 avian species and assessed the correlations between brain size and feeding innovation rates on one side and habitat and diet generalism on the other. Habitat generalism was positively related with food type innovation rate, but not technical innovation rate or brain size. This suggests that habitat generalist species are more likely to incorporate new food types in their diet because of higher chances to find new food resources in their environment, or of a higher opportunism, but not enhanced cognitive skills. In contrast, diet generalist species had higher food type and technical innovation rates, as well as larger brains, suggesting that cognitive skills might help species expand their diet breadth or that an increase in diet breadth might favour the evolution of enhanced cognitive abilities. Our results provide new insights into the nature of the generalists' advantage in the face of environmental changes, and suggest that dietary and habitat generalism are different, but convergent, routes to feeding flexibility and adaptation to changed environments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations184
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207