MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2053139854 · doi:10.1139/z04-078

Should I brood or should I hunt: a female barn owl's dilemma

2004· article· en· W2053139854 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joël M. Durant, Jean‐Paul Gendner, Yves Handrich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingBiologyBroodNest (protein structural motif)HatchingProvisioningBarnPredationBarn-owlEcologyTytoZoologyPaternal careOffspringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While brooding, many female raptors rely exclusively on food provisioning from males. Thus, they may forego hunting until young are about half grown before exiting the nest to undertake a first foraging trip. To investigate the mechanisms that trigger this first foraging exit, we analysed nest food provisioning, female body mass change, and nestling and female food requirements in regard to exit date in five pairs of barn owls, Tyto alba (Scopoli, 1769), nesting in eastern France. Adult mass and behaviour were monitored using an automated weighing system and a video camera. Our results indicate that the first foraging exit of the female occurs about 15 days after the hatching of the first egg. This reinitiation of foraging occurs at about the same time that male food provisioning no longer matches nestling food requirements — about 17 days after the hatching of the first egg. Thus the timing of the female's first hunting trip may be primarily adjusted to a discrepancy between brood food requirements and available food supply. Additionally, we found that females started to lose mass, on average, 6 days before their first hunting trip through a reduction of food intake, and we discuss the potential mechanisms and implications.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.262
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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→