Asynchronous hatching in a blue tit population: a test of some predictions related to ectoparasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although much attention has been devoted to understanding the adaptive value of size hierarchies within broods of altricial birds, current hypotheses are the subject of much debate. Recently it has been suggested that parasites could play a role in promoting the establishment and maintenance of a nestling size hierarchy within broods. For example, the "tasty chick hypothesis" stipulates that the last-hatched chick in asynchronously hatching clutches would have the least efficient immune system, resulting in subsequent parasite aggregation on this chick and hence reducing parasitic pressure on the other chicks of the brood. From data collected during four breeding seasons and after experimental removal of the last-hatched chick, we tested three predictions based on variation in chick body characters within broods in a Corsican blue tit (Parus caeruleus ogliastrae) population exposed to high levels of ectoparasites (Protocalliphora spp.). None of the predictions were fully supported and alternative explanations could not be excluded. In particular, there was no evidence for aggregation of parasites on the last-hatched chick or for a beneficial role of this chick with respect to the others, be it "tasty" or not. Thus, our results are not consistent with the hypothesis that mechanisms responsible for size hierarchies within broods have evolved to alleviate the negative effect of parasites on the fitness of their host.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".