Determinants of social rank in female black-capped chickadees (<i>Poecile atricapilla</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Black-capped chickadees (Poecile atricapilla) mate assortatively by social rank. Previous field studies suggest that intrinsic characteristics of females may influence success at pairing with dominant males. Here we examined factors leading to dominance using dyads of captive unfamiliar females. The ownerintruder hypothesis predicts that prior residency determines dominantsubordinate relationships. The resource-value hypothesis suggests that social status is initially determined by need and the relationship persists through familiarity of the interactants. The resource holding potential hypothesis suggests that individuals win in dyadic contests because of intrinsic characteristics such as size or age. We tested the ownerintruder and resource-value hypotheses by allowing females prior residency in aviaries where dominance interactions subsequently occurred and by food depriving the intruders. Post-hoc comparisons of dominantsubordinate attributes tested the resource holding potential hypothesis. We found that owners were more likely to win interactions. Hungry individuals showed no competitive advantage. Dominants and subordinates did not differ in morphology or age. Our results agree with data from willow tits (Parus montanus) which show that captive females establish dominance independent of males and that prior residence plays a key role. These findings, together with field studies, suggest that assortative mating in chickadees results, at least in part, from intrasexual interactions among females.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".