MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fitness-related Consequences of Relaying in an Arctic Seabird: Survival of Offspring to Recruitment Age

2001· article· en· W2179043183 on OpenAlexaff
J. Mark Hipfner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySeabirdOffspringHatchingSeasonal breederAvian clutch sizePopulationEcologyZoologyArcticReproductive successFledgeDemographyPredationReproductionPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal declines in rates of renesting following clutch loss are common features of avian breeding, and are generally thought to reflect underlying seasonal declines in food availability that lower survival prospects for late-season offspring. However, in Thick-billed Murres (Uria lomvia), long-lived Arctic seabirds that lays a single-egg clutch, previous research has shown that early laying females will continue to relay until late in the laying period. Moreover, hatching success is similar between first and replacement attempts, as are nestling growth and survival, when parental quality is controlled. I compared survival between departure from the breeding site and recruitment age (4–5 years) for Thick-billed Murres that hatched from first and replacement eggs, but that were raised by parents that laid their first eggs early in the season. Replacement-egg offspring hatched and departed the colony about three weeks later than did first-egg offspring, but despite that, they were no less likely to survive to recruitment age. That result indicates that the potential fitness payoff from a replacement egg is similar to that from a first egg for the more capable members of the population. I suggest that an adequate and predictable late-season food supply ultimately underlies the considerable relaying capacity exhibited by Thick-billed Murres.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations27
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207