Nest defense and parental investment in Song Sparrows (<i>Melospiza</i><i> melodia</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual variation in nest defense behaviour is common in altricial birds, but despite clear predictions about why such variation exists, there is no consensus on its causes. We tested for an influence of five predictors of individual variation in nest defense behaviour, including time of season, offspring age, parental age and sex, and clutch size in a well-studied Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia (A. Wilson, 1810)) population. We recorded parental responses to a standardized human approach and used model selection to assess support for each predictor. Parents tended to approach observers less closely and alarm-call less as the breeding season progressed, indicating a modest seasonal decline in parental nest defense, which is consistent with the hypothesis that the reproductive value of offspring influenced parental defense behaviour. Clutch size effect estimates were insignificant, but it was weakly supported as a predictor of nest defense, which is expected if parental investment in defense and current reproductive effort are positively related. Offspring age, as well as parental age and sex, received little or no support as affecting parent nest defense. Our results offer limited support for the hypothesis that the reproductive value of offspring affects parental nest defense.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".