MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110594789 · doi:10.1139/z07-070

Site- and sex-level differences in adult feeding behaviour and its consequences to offspring quality in tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) following brood-size manipulation

2007· article· en· W2110594789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel R. Ardia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOffspringBroodPaternal careZoologyEcologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In species with biparental care, males tend to invest less in offspring than do females, likely because of differences in the costs and benefits associated with parental effort. Here I test for sex differences in the response of tree swallows ( Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808)) to a brood-size manipulation at two locations differing in food resources, Alaska and New York. I tested sex and habitat differences in how swallows responded to changes in offspring demand. At both sites, both sexes increased effort when feeding enlarged broods, although Alaskan males increased feeding less than Alaskan females. Males decreased feeding effort more to reduced broods than females, but only in Alaska. Food abundance was higher in Alaska than in New York, and Alaskan tree swallows made more feeding visits than New York tree swallows. In New York, food availability did not predict feeding rate and there was no sex difference in the response to brood manipulation. In both sites, male feeding effort was linked with nestling residual body mass, while female feeding effort was correlated with nestling growth rate. This study demonstrates that male tree swallows differ from females by being the first to reduce feeding effort under certain conditions and that male and female feeding rate affects offspring quality differently.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.634
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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