PROVISIONING RATES BY GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied parental provisioning rates and nestling body condition in an introgressed population of Golden-winged Warblers (Vermivora chrysoptera) in eastern Ontario. Twelve nests were monitored until the young fledged; six nests were parented by phenotypically pure Golden-winged Warbler males and females, and six were parented by pure Golden-winged Warbler males mated with introgressed hybrid females. Nestlings that had a hybrid parent did not show differences in body condition from nestlings with two Golden-winged Warbler parents. Provisioning patterns were examined for potential relationships with several different factors: gender of the parent (male vs. female), nestling age, pair type (pure vs. hybrid), and the proportion of extra-pair young in the brood. Both males and females increased their provisioning rates as nestlings grew, and males consistently provisioned at higher rates than females. Golden-winged Warbler parents and hybrid parents did not show significant differences in provisioning rates. Females significantly increased provisioning rates with increasing levels of extra-pair paternity. Our results suggest that hybrid nestlings are not at a disadvantage in terms of body condition, and that hybrid parents are equally adept at provisioning their young as are phenotypic Golden-winged Warbler parents.
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".