MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2289126992 · doi:10.14288/1.0075097

Pre-incubation behaviour of Harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in Labrador : testing the function of male vigilance and aggression

2009· article· en· W2289126992 on OpenAlex
Kelly A. Squires

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAggressionVigilance (psychology)ZoologyIncubationGeographyBiologyPsychologySocial psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male behaviours such as vigilance and aggression are usually assumed to function in paternity assurance during the pre-incubation period. However, the functions of these behaviours may be to protect females from conspecifics and predators during feeding and resting thereby enhancing their ability to form clutches. I studied pre-incubation behaviour in a population of Harlequin Ducks to determine how male vigilance and aggression are related to female foraging, resting and date of clutch initiation. In 2000 and 2001, 217 hours of time-activity data on 12 paired females and 16 paired males were collected on two rivers in central Labrador during the pre-incubation period. Males face greater risk of losing paternity due to mate loss than to extra-pair copulation (EPC) because EPC attempts were rare and did not result in cloacal contact due to female resistance. Most aggression was low-level 'head-nodding' by both members of a pair. Though high-level male aggression was directed at other males, it occurred during feeding and not resting, despite close proximity between resting pairs and unpaired males. High-level aggression by males was likely used to defend feeding areas and not to 'mate guard'. Harlequin Ducks were observed in lake outlets throughout the preincubation period except during spring snow melt when they were observed feeding close to flooded lakeshores. The proportion of time that males were vigilant during feeding bouts was greater when pairs were observed at the lakeshore than in the river outlets (22% versus 5%). Males were more vigilant than females and were vigilant when other males were not within sight. The frequency of male vigilance was unrelated to the female fertile period suggesting no paternity assurance function. Male vigilance and female feeding and resting were not positively correlated and vigilance and aggression were unrelated to date of clutch initiation. Males may use vigilance to detect predators to enhance female survival in 'risky' habitat

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.174 · 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