MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123038101 · doi:10.1525/auk.2008.125.1.67

OFF-TERRITORY FORAYS AND GENETIC MATING SYSTEM OF THE WOOD THRUSH (<i>HYLOCICHLA MUSTELINA</i>)

2008· article· en· W2123038101 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa L. Evans, Bridget J. M. Stutchbury, Bonnie E. Woolfenden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatingBiologyThrushPopulationZoologyEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Extrapair fertilizations (EPFs) are an important component of many socially monogamous mating systems. However, information about the reproductive tactics used by male and female birds in extrapair mating systems is still rare. We used radiotelemetry to measure territory use, forays, and mate association in Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) when females were fertile and not fertile. We also conducted paternity analysis to determine the frequency of EPFs in our study population. Socially paired male and female Wood Thrush maintained a close physical association while on their own territory. Most of the off-territory forays observed during the fertile stage were conducted by social pairs. Lone males rarely engaged in off-territory forays during their mate's fertile period but made relatively frequent off-territory forays when their mates were not fertile. Male Wood Thrush may trade-off investment into paternity assurance and extrapair tactics by favoring a mate-guarding tactic when their within-pair paternity is most at risk. The overall rate of EPF (6%) exhibited by Wood Thrush is low compared with other synchronously breeding avian species. We suggest that extensive on- and off-territory mate association throughout the females' fertile period may limit female extrapair mating opportunities and also limit a male's ability to interact with any soliciting extrapair females. Excursiones Hacia Afuera del Territorio y Sistema Genético de Apareamiento de Hylocichla mustelina

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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations42
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207