Bibliographic record
Abstract
Begging by nestling passerine birds has become a model system for studies in animal communication. Although most begging occurs when parents arrive at the nest to feed (here called “primary begging”), it also occurs between feeding visits and immediately after parents leave the nest. Begging in these contexts (here called “secondary begging”) may have relatively little influence on the probability of receiving food, but could increase the overall cost of the signal and thus influence nestling begging strategies. The purpose of our study was to determine how often tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) nestlings beg in contexts other than to parents with food and to examine what factors influence the frequency of this begging. Secondary begging ranged from 7% of measured begging responses at day 2 to 30% by day 8 and was more frequent when the interval between parental feeding visits was relatively long and when the time to respond to the arrival of parents with food was short. Increases in both age and intervisit interval were associated with decreases in nestling response times, suggesting that secondary begging may be related to the speed with which nestlings respond to stimuli. We discuss possible functions of secondary begging and raise the possibility that it may, in fact, be an error.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".