MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165064859 · doi:10.1242/jeb.01675

The metabolic cost of egg production is repeatable

2005· article· en· W2165064859 on OpenAlexaff
François Vézina, Tony D. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaeniopygiaBiologyBasal metabolic rateAvian clutch sizeRepeatabilityZebra finchMetabolic costMetabolic rateAnimal scienceZoologyAdaptation (eye)ReproductionEcologyEndocrinologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The metabolic cost of egg production in birds (passerines) has been measured as a 16-27% increase in basal or resting metabolic rate (BMR and RMR, respectively) when comparing non-breeding values with those in egg-producing individuals. However, available data to date have been obtained in free-living birds and may thus be confounded by the effect of variable ecological conditions on non-reproductive physiological machinery (organ mass or metabolic activity) which might contribute to measured variation in RMR. Here, we show that in captive, controlled conditions, the process of egg formation induces a 22% increase in RMR in female zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata. Among individuals, variation in laying RMR is independent of egg mass, clutch size or total clutch mass. Importantly, we show that individual variation in both non-breeding and laying RMR is repeatable over periods of at least 8-10 months, i.e. individual variation in RMR remained constant over time for any given physiological state. This suggests that the metabolic cost of egg formation should respond to selection. However, we also show that in males, but not females, repeatability of RMR declines over time even when birds are kept in constant controlled conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations80
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207