MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Maternal resource variation across the laying sequence in Canada geese <i>Branta canadensis maxima</i>

2009· article· en· W2064201047 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Todd A. Boonstra, Mark E. Clark, Wendy L. Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesDelta Waterfowl
KeywordsBiologyPrecocialAltricialYolkAvian clutch sizeOffspringBrantaAnatidaeZoologyEcologyReproductionBroodAnimal scienceGoose

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variation in maternal investments to offspring presumably reflects an optimization of resource allocation such that a female's fitness is maximized. In birds, both egg size and yolk constituents are examples of resources that can vary among offspring within a clutch. Egg size and maternally‐derived steroid hormone concentrations present in yolk have been characterized for many species that lay small clutches or have altricial young, but little information is available for species that lay moderate to large clutches of precocial young. In this study, we recorded laying position, measured fresh egg mass and determined maternally‐derived testosterone and estradiol concentrations present in yolks for whole clutches of free‐living Canada geese Branta canadensis maxima to assess variation in maternal resources within clutches. We found that egg size varied non‐linearly across the laying sequence such that first laid eggs were small, the largest eggs in the clutch occurred in the second and third positions, and size declined in eggs laid in subsequent positions. Concentration of testosterone in the yolk followed a pattern in which the first and second laid eggs have the highest concentrations within a clutch and declining concentrations in subsequently laid eggs. In contrast, maternally‐derived yolk estradiol concentrations (measured in a subset of clutches) did not change across the laying sequence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207