The association between the emergence of cooperative breeding and clutch size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous theoretical work has suggested that smaller brood sizes helped facilitate the emergence of cooperative breeding in birds. However, recent empirical evidence has found no statistically significant difference between the clutch sizes of cooperative breeders and that of noncooperative breeders. One explanation for this finding is that while small clutch sizes may predispose species to cooperative breeding, the emergence of cooperative breeding itself may influence the evolution of clutch size. Here, we develop a set of models using population dynamics to describe how the emergence of cooperative breeding influences clutch size. We find, in contrast to previous theoretical work, that the emergence of cooperative breeding does not necessarily decrease (and under certain conditions may actually increase) clutch size. In particular, clutch size may increase after the emergence of cooperative breeding if helpers--philopatric individuals that assist their breeding relatives--are able to substantially improve breeder fecundity at low costs to their own survival, and if the association between breeder and helper is brief. In many cases, clutch size increases following the emergence of cooperative breeding not because it is optimal for the breeder, but as the result of breeder-helper conflict over resource allocation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".