Effects of supplementation with preferred foods on the reproductive axis of American Goldfinches (<i>Spinus tristis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous field studies indicate that food supplementation of birds can advance laying date. In addition, laboratory studies, though less common, suggest that altering the amount of food, the predictability of food, or food type can affect reproductive physiology. American Goldfinches ( Spinus tristis , formerly Carduelis tristis (L., 1758)) breed in late summer when thistle (Cynareae) seeds become abundant, suggesting that specific food types may affect their reproductive physiology. We tested whether supplementation with preferred seeds would affect reproductive physiology of male and female American Goldfinches. Birds were photostimulated and fed a standard pellet diet, or supplemented with a variety of preferred seeds. Supplemented females developed larger ovarian follicles. Supplemented males had higher levels of plasma testosterone, but only if they were also housed with a female. These results suggest that preferred seed types can act as a supplementary cue in this species, and fine-tune photoperiod-driven changes in reproductive physiology.
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".