EXTENT OF DOUBLE-BROODING AND SEASONAL MOVEMENT OF NESTING FEMALES IN A NORTHERN POPULATION OF WOOD THRUSHES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate estimates of the amount of double-brooding within a population are an important parameter for assessing the population sustainability of forest birds. In 1998 and 1999, we color-banded adult female Wood Thrushes (Hylocichla mustelina) at 70 nests early in the breeding season to assess the frequency of double-brooding in a northern population. We found that double-brooding was a common breeding strategy among Wood Thrushes in southern Ontario. Forty-seven females fledged first broods and 74% (n = 35) of them initiated egg-laying in a subsequent nest. It is possible that at least 87% (n = 41) of the females were double-brooded, based on the evidence of 6 later nests built within 50 m of successful first nests that were depredated or fledged young before their owners could be identified. Other second-brood nests were probably missed because they were overlooked and because some females moved considerable distances (100–400 m) between nestings. Most birds that failed in their early nesting attempt were not found again on the site, precluding verification of their renesting efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".