Experimentally altered plumage brightness of female tree swallows: a test of the differential allocation hypothesis
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
The differential allocation hypothesis posits that individuals should invest in the current reproductive attempt according to the attractiveness of their mate, but studies of allocation by males when female traits are manipulated to be more attractive are lacking. In the current study, we experimentally enhanced and reduced the plumage brightness of female tree swallows ( Tachycineta bicolor ) relative to controls to examine whether males adjust investment in parental care according to female attractiveness, while simultaneously performing a brood size manipulation. Contrary to our predictions, we found no evidence that males provisioned nestlings according to the plumage brightness of females. However, we found that nestling quality and fledging success were lowest when female plumage brightness was reduced and brood size was enlarged. This may be due to the plumage brightness treatment influencing agonistic interactions with other females, and may suggest that plumage brightness is a signal assessed by females.
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) | 0.000 | 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