MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087673147 · doi:10.1139/z03-082

Parental roles and mating system in the black-winged stilt

2003· article· en· W2087673147 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
José Javier Cuervo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPaternal careNest (protein structural motif)Agonistic behaviourMatingForagingEcologyMating systemZoologyParental investmentReproductive successDemographyOffspringAggressionPopulationPregnancyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The breeding behaviour of black-winged stilts (Himantopus himantopus) was studied in southwestern Spain. In the prelaying period males devoted more time than females to agonistic encounters, locomotion, and nest building. During egg laying, males spent more time than females at the nest, mostly building the nest and covering the eggs, while females spent more time foraging than males. During late incubation, females spent significantly more time at the nest than males. These results suggest very similar parental investment by the sexes. During part of the female's fertile period, males stayed at the nest while females were foraging, which precluded efficient mate guarding. However, females were reluctant to engage in extra-pair copulations, being always very aggressive towards conspecifics except for their mates. Even in two cases of extra-pair copulation, the first described for this species, the female continuously attacked the intrusive male and did not cooperate in copulation. Male parental care seems to be essential for reproductive success and females are probably faithful in order to assure male parental investment. The need for parental care from both males and females would maintain social, and perhaps also genetic, monogamy in this species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207