Age and years to death disparately influence reproductive allocation in a short‐lived bird
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory predicts that reproduction will change as individuals near the end of their lives by either increasing reproductive allocation (terminal allocation hypothesis) or decreasing allocation (senescence hypothesis) toward the end of life. Although senescence has received more support, few studies examine how both age and years to death influence late-life reproduction. We used a 37-yr study of Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia) to ask how age and years to death influenced reproductive allocation late in life. We observed both senescence and terminal allocation, and that age and years to death interacted to influence individual variation in allocation tactics. In particular, we observed a decline in allocation in older individuals (senescence), but only when comparing individuals with the same number of years to death. Likewise, we observed terminal allocation, but only in young females. Reproductive tactics were most variable in young females, with many exerting high effort but living 1-2 yr, and others exerting low effort annually and living longer. Our results suggest that late-life reproductive tactics are influenced by both chronological age and years to death, and that short- and long-lived females with differing reproductive tactics exist within this population of Song Sparrows.
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".