Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined sources of variation in incubation patterns among female Wood Ducks (Aix sponsa), and investigated the effect of female nest attentiveness on incubation period. Data were collected from 44 females (n = 911 days) using temperature data loggers to monitor nest attendance throughout incubation. Mean (± SE) incubation constancy was 86.9 ± 0.6% and incubation period averaged 30.9 ± 0.2 days. Females took an average of two bimodally-distributed recesses per day. Duration of recesses averaged 98.6 ± 3.4 min, but were shorter in the morning than in mid-day or late afternoon. Body mass of incubating females declined 0.68 ± 0.2 g day−1, but there was no relationship between constancy and early incubation body mass or weight change of females. Incubation constancy was not correlated with length of the incubation period. For most females, incubation constancy and recess frequency did not change as incubation progressed. The fact that incubating females only lost an average of 3% of body mass, and constancy was not related to either body mass or length of the incubation period, suggests that females were not constrained energetically. Finally, we propose that the combination of reduced predation risk and the need of neonates to be more functionally mature at hatching has selected for longer incubation periods in Wood Ducks and other cavity-nesting waterfowl.
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 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) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".