MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101284261 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1452

Non-breeding season events influence sexual selection in a long-distance migratory bird

2009· article· en· W2101284261 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew W. Reudink, Peter P. Marra, Kurt Kyser, Peter T. Boag, Kathryn M. Langin, Laurene M. Ratcliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual selectionSeasonal breederSelection (genetic algorithm)BiologyGeographyEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study of sexual selection has traditionally focused on events and behaviours immediately surrounding copulation. In this study, we examine whether carry-over effects from the non-breeding season can influence the process of sexual selection in a long-distance migratory bird, the American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla). Previous work on American redstarts demonstrated that overwintering in a high-quality habitat influences spring departure dates from the wintering grounds, advances arrival dates on the breeding grounds and increases apparent reproductive success. We show that the mixed-mating strategy of American redstarts compounds the benefits of overwintering in high-quality winter habitats. Males arriving to breed in Canada from high-quality winter habitats arrive earlier than males from poor-quality habitats, resulting in a lower probability of paternity loss, a higher probability of achieving polygyny and ultimately higher realized reproductive success. Such results suggest that the process of sexual selection may be influenced by events interacting throughout the annual cycle.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations161
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207