MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167317936 · doi:10.1676/05-079.1

FEMALE TREE SWALLOW HOME-RANGE MOVEMENTS DURING THEIR FERTILE PERIOD AS REVEALED BY RADIO-TRACKING

2006· article· en· W2167317936 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary K. Stapleton, Raleigh J. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAmerican Ornithologists' Union
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)Home rangeMatingBiologyForageNest boxRange (aeronautics)ForagingEcologyZoologyHabitatPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) show one of the highest levels of extra-pair mating among bird species, yet extra-pair copulations are rarely observed. Despite the suggestion that extra-pair copulations could be taking place away from nest sites, very little is known about movement patterns of individual Tree Swallows during the pre-laying and laying periods. We used radio telemetry to track movement patterns of four female Tree Swallows at dawn and dusk during the pre-laying and laying periods. Our tracking results indicate that individual females differed in their movement patterns: some remained close to their nest site on multiple nights while others were rarely detected near their nest box at night. Despite differences in movement patterns, all four females that we tracked produced extra-pair offspring for which we were unable to identify extra-pair sires, even after sampling the majority of males breeding within our nest-box grids. Despite the small sample size, our results confirmed extensive Tree Swallow movement away from nest-box grids during the pre-laying and laying periods. This highlights the need for future studies of mating behavior away from the nesting site, particularly for species that forage and/or roost in communal areas during their fertile period.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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

Citations31
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207