MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086618366 · doi:10.1676/06-050.1

PROVISIONING RATES BY GOLDEN-WINGED WARBLERS

2007· article· en· W2086618366 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lauren P. Reed, Rachel Vallender, Raleigh J. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWarblerBiologyBroodProvisioningZoologyEcologyDemographyPopulationHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207