MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166148606 · doi:10.1139/z04-016

Tree swallow reproductive investment, stress, and parasites

2004· article· en· W2166148606 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Dave Shutler, Adele Mullie, Robert G. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyFleaAvian clutch sizeFledgeZoologyReproductionFeatherEcologyNest (protein structural motif)FicedulaParasite hostingAnimal sciencePredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reduced or increased tree swallow, Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808), clutch sizes by three eggs (50% of modal clutch size) to test experimentally for relationships between stress and parasite loads. In the first year of the study (1996), we enumerated two measures of stress (granulocyte to non-granulocyte ratios and heterophil to lymphocyte ratios), blood parasites, and ectoparasites living on birds (and not in nesting material). Stress indices increased for parents, but not for nestlings, associated with larger broods. Only one blood parasite (a trypanosome) was detected in blood smears from 221 different individuals. On individual birds, we found a median of 0 fleas, 0 lice, and 7 feather mites. In the second study (1998), we focused on parasites living in nesting material. Here, we found a median of 106 fleas and, of the parasites we observed, these probably had the greatest potential impact on the birds. Per capita flea loads were higher in nests that contained more young. However, despite higher stress to parents and higher per capita flea loads in enlarged broods, flea numbers were not associated with smaller nestlings or with reduced fledging success.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207