Parent–offspring associations in wintering brent geese: parental investment or mutual assistance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The continued parent–offspring associations in the Eastern Canadian High Arctic light‐bellied brent goose Branta bernicla hrota was examined to determine whether this is an example of continued parental investment or mutual assistance. Adults with juveniles spend more than twice as much time being vigilant and aggressive than do those without offspring. The loss of a partner, however, does not result in the remaining parent increasing parental care but does result in increased ‘self‐care’ by the juveniles. Neither parents nor single‐parent juveniles appear to pay an energetic cost relative to non‐parental adults and two‐parent juveniles, respectively. Differences in the feeding distribution of parents and non‐parents and equivalent or better physical condition suggests that families are able to maintain access to a superior food supply over the winter. Passive ‘assistance’ by juveniles may assist in maintaining this position in favoured areas, and this is achieved with little overt aggression. The present study thus provides no data that show a net cost to parents by remaining with their juveniles over the winter period. Thus, mutual assistance might be a better explanation of the prolonged association rather than a period of parental investment with an overall cost.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".