MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318797816 · doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003350

Female mountain bluebirds (Sialia currucoides) paired to more colourful males produce male-biased broods

2016· article· en· W2318797816 on OpenAlexafffund
Erica S. Bonderud, Nancy J. Flood, Jonathan D. Van Hamme, Cameron A. W. Boyda, Matthew W. Reudink

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaThompson Rivers University
KeywordsPlumageAttractivenessBiologyOffspringReproductive successReproductive valuePaternal careZoologyMate choiceDemographyEcologyMatingPopulationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex allocation theory predicts that females should bias the sex ratio of their offspring in response to differences in the reproductive value of sons versus daughters. Consistent with this prediction, females of many species appear to bias offspring sex ratios in response to mate attractiveness and condition. Male mountain bluebirds (Sialia currucoides) display full body UV-blue structural plumage colouration, which is associated with attractiveness, condition, and reproductive success. Over four breeding seasons, we found females paired with more colourful males produced increasingly male-biased broods and provisioned offspring at a higher rate. Surprisingly, however, we also found females with duller plumage and those mated to first-year males produced more male-biased broods. These results provide support for sex allocation in mountain bluebirds and suggest female reproductive decisions may be influenced by the attractiveness of her mate. However, this system is clearly complex and more work is needed to understand the roles of male age and female colouration in the signalling systems of mountain bluebirds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehaviourSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207