Testing hypotheses about the function of repeated nest abandonment as a life history strategy in a passerine bird
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
Nest structures are essential for successful reproduction in most bird species. Nest construction costs time and energy, and most bird species typically build one nest per breeding attempt. Some species, however, build more than one nest, and the reason for this behaviour is often unclear. In the Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa , nest abandonment before egg‐laying is very common. Fantails will build up to seven nests within a breeding season, and pairs abandon up to 71% of their nests before egg‐laying. We describe multiple nest‐building behaviour in the Grey Fantail and test four hypotheses explaining nest abandonment in this species: cryptic depredation, destruction of nests during storm events, and two anti‐predatory responses (construction of decoy nests to confuse predators, and increasing concealment to ‘hide’ nests more effectively). We found support for only one hypothesis – that abandonment is related to nest concealment. Abandoned nests were significantly less concealed than nests that received eggs. Most abandoned nests were not completely built and none received eggs, thus ruling out cryptic predation. Nests were not more likely to be abandoned following storm events. The decoy nest hypothesis was refuted as abandoned nests were constructed at any point during the breeding season and some nests were dismantled and the material used to build the subsequent nest. Thus, Grey Fantails are flexible about nest‐site locations during the nest‐building phase and readily abandon nest locations if they are found to have deficient security.
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) | 0.002 | 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