MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745784086 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1083

Nest prospecting brown-headed cowbirds ‘parasitize’ social information when the value of personal information is lacking

2017· article· en· W2745784086 on OpenAlexafffund
David J. White, Hayden B. Davies, Samuel Agyapong, Nora Seegmiller

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicOpinion Dynamics and Social Influence
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)ProspectingValue (mathematics)Value of informationBusinessEcologyEconomicsBiologyEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsMining engineeringMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brood parasites face considerable cognitive challenges in locating and selecting host nests for their young. Here, we test whether female brown-headed cowbirds, Molothrus ater , could use information acquired from observing the nest prospecting patterns of conspecifics to influence their own patterns of nest selection. In laboratory-based experiments, we created a disparity in the amount of personal information females had about the quality of nests. Females with less personal information about the quality of two nests spent more time investigating the nest that more knowledgeable females investigated. Furthermore, there was a strong negative relationship between individual's ability to track nest quality using personal information and their tendency to copy others. These two contrasting strategies for selecting nests are equally effective, but lead to different patterns of parasitism.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceFrench-language works237,207