HABITAT, DOMINANCE, AND THE PHENOTYPIC QUALITY OF MALE BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provisioning of offspring is limited by resource abundance and is therefore likely to vary with habitat quality and the ability of parents to obtain food. Provisioning effort may also vary because males choose different life-history strategies depending on their rank and environment. Socially dominant males have higher costs of self-maintenance compared with subordinates, yet this is likely compensated for by their priority access to resources. It is unclear, however, whether this translates into benefits for females through male provisioning effort, and how this might vary with habitat suitability. We assessed patterns of body condition, blood hematocrit levels, and provisioning effort of dominant and subordinate male Black-capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus) breeding in two habitats known to differ in quality. Within ranks, males were similar in size and condition across habitats. Dominant males were not structurally larger than subordinates, but they were in better condition than subordinates in both habitats. There was an additive effect of habitat and dominance rank on hematocrit level; dominant males had higher hematocrit levels than subordinates regardless of habitat, and all males breeding in poor habitat had elevated hematocrits. A habitat-rank interaction revealed a greater disparity in provisioning rates among dominant and subordinate males in poor habitats. These results suggest that dominant males may be particularly good mates when resources are scarce.
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 | 0.001 | 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".