MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2169785217 · doi:10.1139/z09-027

Egg neglect under risk of predation in Cassin’s Auklet (<i>Ptychoramphus aleuticus</i>)

2009· article· en· W2169785217 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Robert A. Ronconi, J. Mark Hipfner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsPredationBiologyNeglectIncubationForagingEcologyZoologyNest (protein structural motif)BurrowPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested predictions concerning the significance of egg neglect for the burrow-nesting seabird Cassin’s auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus (Pallas, 1811)) at a colony where endemic Keen’s mice (Peromyscus keeni Merriam, 1897) depredate unattended eggs. A video-camera probe was used to monitor neglect and predation in 32 burrows, and mass loss of incubating adults was measured in 12 separate burrows. Incubating birds lost 8.1% of their body mass over obligate 24 h incubation shifts, suggesting that incubation is costly. In response, most pairs (79%) neglected their egg at least once. As predicted, rates of neglect decreased as incubation progressed, and the costs of neglect increased. Rates of neglect increased during periods of strong winds, which create poor foraging conditions at sea. Contrary to predictions, rates of neglect did not increase when burrows were colder and self-maintenance costs were higher. Neglect was risky in that rates of egg loss by predation increased with frequency of neglect. Increased neglect early in incubation and during periods of poor foraging conditions, despite high rates of predation on neglected eggs, is consistent with the existence of a fitness trade-off between costs and benefits of neglect.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→