VIGILANCE BEHAVIOR IN THE HARLEQUIN DUCK (HISTRIONICUS HISTRIONICUS) DURING THE PREINCUBATION PERIOD IN LABRADOR: ARE MALES VIGILANT FOR SELF OR SOCIAL PARTNER?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Males of several avian species are more vigilant than their female partners, particularly during the preincubation period. Male vigilance may function as a deterrent of extrapair copulation attempts (EPCs) or to ensure male survival, because males of sexually dimorphic species may be more conspicuous to predators than females. However, vigilant males may act as antipredator sentinels to enhance female survivorship, which may also allow females to feed and rest more efficiently, thereby enhancing their ability to form clutches. We attempted to distinguish between the “male benefits” and “female benefits” hypotheses by studying the behavior of unpaired males and paired Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) during the preincubation period. Paired males were, on average, four times more vigilant than unpaired males and their mates, which suggests that elevated levels of vigilance by paired males does not function primarily for self-protection against predators. Males were not more vigilant during the female’s fertile period, contrary to the “paternity assurance” hypothesis. Male vigilance during feeding bouts was highest when pairs fed alone near shore—a condition in which feeding was likely more “risky.” Male vigilance was positively correlated with female feeding when females fed near shore, but not at other times. During resting bouts, males were vigilant 14 ± 0.01% of the time in all conditions. We suggest that male vigilance may be important to enhance female survival, especially when females feed under risky conditions. Comportement de Vigilance chez Histrionicus histrionicus durant la Période de Pré- incubation au Labrador: Les Mâles Sont-ils Vigilants pour Eux-mêmes ou pour leur Partenaire Social?
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 | 0.001 | 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".