Pairing Decisions in the Harlequin Duck: Costs and Benefits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In waterfowl, the male costs and female benefits hypothesis considers that the timing of pairing will depend on the balance between the costs and benefits for each sex. Females may benefit by increasing their access to food and social status, and by decreasing harassment from conspecifics, while maintaining a pair bond for a long period should be costly to males. To investigate costs and benefits of early pairing in the Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus), we compared time budgets and frequency of interactions (agonistic, courtship, and mate guarding behavior) from paired and unpaired males and females. A total of 400 thirty-minute focal-animal sampling sessions were used for the analysis. Overall, feeding time did not differ between paired and unpaired birds of both sexes. However, regardless of their reproductive status, females spent about 15% more time feeding than males throughout the winter. While diving, paired males spent 4% less time underwater than unpaired males, but no difference was found between paired and unpaired females. Males spent more time on the surface between dives than females, yet the differences between paired and unpaired birds were not significant. Paired males were engaged in more interactions (mainly mate guarding) than unpaired males. Interactions received by paired and unpaired females did not differ overall, however, from late October to early May, interactions with paired females decreased, while interactions directed to unpaired females increased. Thus the pair bond, though being apparently costly to males, did not obviously benefit females by increasing feeding time. Early pairing in the Harlequin Duck may result from other factors, such as the advantages that pair reunion may confer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it