Extra-pair copulations in common murres I: a mate attraction strategy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated the behavioural context of pair (PCs) and extra-pair copulations (EPCs) in individually-marked socially-monogamous, long-lived seabirds, common murres (Uria aalge). Since forced EPCs have been documented for this species, we first examined which sex controls successful (cloacal contact achieved) copulation. The finding that all successful copulations required female cooperation and crouching suggested that benefits of successful EPCs accrue primarily to females. In a group of murres for which paternity analyses indicated no extra-pair paternity, behavioural observations over five breeding seasons showed that individual females engaged in EPCs primarily under two circumstances: (1) before they were reunited with their mates, and (2) when they were in the process of re-pairing. There was no such relationship between EPCs and re-pairing for males. Successful EPCs occurred with familiar neighboring males of apparent high quality, indicated by their high ledge attendance and prior reproductive success rates. Thus, EPCs may be used by females to attract potential high quality mates in situations where females are attempting to re-pair as a result of divorce or mate death.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".