MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex‐dependent frequency and consequences of natural handicaps in American Kestrels

2001· article· en· W2118852880 on OpenAlexafffund
Russell D. Dawson, Gary R. Bortolotti, Gillian L. Murza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFeatherFlight featherBiologyZoologyPlumageEcologyMoulting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural selection theory suggests that there should be fitness consequences for animals that possess morphological abnormalities such as missing or deformed appendages and other structures. As these characters are expected to be detrimental, morphological abnormalities could be considered “handicaps”. However, little information exists about the nature, prevalence or consequences of naturally occurring handicaps in birds, even though experimental handicapping has been used in some behavioural studies. Here, we document and describe the frequency of natural handicaps in American Kestrels Falco sparverius , and investigate their influence on condition and survival. We considered three different categories of handicap that should negatively impact falcons: missing remiges and rectrices, broken remiges and rectrices, and foot handicaps. Broken feathers, followed by missing feathers, were the most common handicaps detected in kestrels and their prevalence increased throughout the breeding season. Foot handicaps were relatively rare and showed no seasonal trends. There was no effect of any handicap type on body condition or return rates of male kestrels. In contrast, females with either foot handicaps or broken feathers were in significantly poorer condition than control females, and females with broken feathers were less likely than control females to return to the study area in years following initial capture. Given that female kestrels with broken feathers have more fault bars than those without broken feathers, and fault bar formation is related to stresses in a bird's past, we suggest that female kestrels that had broken feathers were of poorer quality than those without broken feathers or those with missing feathers. Females with broken feathers may therefore have been in poorer condition initially than other birds, or if broken feathers are indicative of poor quality, then females with broken feathers may have been less able to cope with the negative impacts of feather loss on flight performance compared to birds with missing feathers.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207