Relationships between carotenoid-based female plumage and age, reproduction, and mate colour in the American Redstart (<i>Setophaga ruticilla</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies investigating the function and evolution of ornaments have focused on males. Variation in ornaments may also reflect individual quality and convey information in females. We examined correlations between female plumage colour and reproductive variables in the sexually dichromatic songbird, the American Redstart (Setophaga ruticilla (L., 1758)). Female American Redstarts display yellow, carotenoid-based plumage patches on their tails, wings, and flanks. Using reflectance spectrometry, we quantified brightness (feather structure) and “yellowness” (hue and chroma) of tail and flank feathers to examine whether female plumage colour varies with age, reproductive success, parental care, and the plumage colour of mates. Female plumage varied with age, with adult (after-second-year) females having brighter tail feathers than first-year females. We failed to find a relationship between female plumage colour and pairing or first-egg dates. However, adult females with brighter tails visited their nests less frequently and first-year females with brighter tails fledged fewer offspring. Adult females with brighter tails also mated with males who provided less care. In addition, adult females with yellower flanks paired with males with brighter flanks and with males who provided less parental care. We suggest that plumage colouration in female American Redstarts can act as a signal of individual age and quality.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".