Adult Brünnich's Guillemots <i>Uria lomvia</i> balance body condition and investment in chick growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the covariation of adult body condition and nestling growth, we weighed adult Brünnich's Guillemots Uria lomvia rearing chicks at Coats Island, Nunavut, Canada, each year between 1988 and 2002. We estimated chick mass at 14 days for a sample of chicks reared in the same years. Adult mass and chick mass at 14 days were highly correlated, suggesting that, as feeding conditions deteriorate, adults compromise by reducing their own body reserves, while at the same time delivering less food to their offspring. We compared the prediction of the least‐squares regression for the Coats Island data with observations made at Digges Island, a much larger colony about 300 km away, where birds are similar in linear body measurements to those at Coats Island and have a similar body mass while incubating. Adult mass at Digges Island averaged 11% less during chick‐rearing than during incubation, compared with only a 5% difference at Coats Island. Mean chick mass at 14 days at Digges Island was lower in all years than was observed for chicks at Coats Island in any year. The observed 14‐day chick masses at Digges Island in two years were close to values predicted by adult mass and somewhat lower in two other years (those when chick growth was slowest). At Digges Island, the distribution of mass for brooding adults was right skewed and suggested a lower threshold at 800–850 g, below which Brünnich's Guillemots terminate breeding. We conclude that the correlation between adult and chick mass represents a dynamic equilibrium in which adults simultaneously adjust their own energy reserves and their delivery rate to the chick. This compromise must be based on behavioural choices made by individual birds and is unlikely to be a passive consequence of fluctuating conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".