An overview and comparative analysis of singing on the nest in North American birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bird song is used to defend territories and attract mates and tends to make the singer conspicuous. Singing on the nest (SOTN) has been mentioned since 1904 but has remained largely unexplored. This behavior occurs in 10.1% of breeding birds of North America. Factors that predict the likelihood of SOTN for any species include colonial nesting, incubation sharing and feeding, and taxonomic family. If SOTN is as conspicuous as other forms of singing, this behavior may incur significant costs, such as increased nest predation and parasitism. Data collected from the literature regarding nest vocalizations of adult birds (calls and songs) showed those costs were not significantly different between vocalizing and silent birds. There was greater variance in the rates of nest predation and parasitism for vocalizing birds, which may suggest greater risk. The function(s) of SOTN are not well understood and are mostly untested. Several hypotheses are presented to explain this behavior. This is the first attempt to examine this behavior in any depth and demonstrates the need for further research to explore its function(s) and consequences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".