MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746006306 · doi:10.1111/jav.01424

Do environmental conditions experienced in early life affect recruitment age and performance at first breeding in common goldeneye females?

2017· article· en· W2746006306 on OpenAlexaff
Hannu Pöysä, Robert G. Clark, Antti Paasivaara, Pentti Runko

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDemographyAffect (linguistics)PopulationNest (protein structural motif)Reproductive successLife history theoryEcologyLife history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental conditions experienced early in life may have long‐term impacts on life history traits and reproductive performance. We investigated whether ambient temperature experienced during the first two to four weeks of life and weather severity during the first two winters affected recruitment age and relative timing of breeding in the year of recruitment in female common goldeneyes Bucephala clangula . Our sample consisted of 141 female recruits hatched in a study population in central Finland between 1985 and 2013 and captured later as breeders. About 56% of the recruited females bred for the first time when two years old (range 2–6 yr). Individuals facing colder ambient temperatures during the first two to four weeks posthatch or more severe winter conditions during the first two winters did not recruit at an older age. Nor did maternal characteristics, relative hatch date or nest site availability affect recruitment age. For females that recruited at two years old, the date of first breeding was usually late relative to the population mean that year (mean difference 6.9 d, range –7 to 21 d). Our results suggest developmental buffering enables female goldeneye ducklings to mitigate the impacts of adverse environmental conditions experienced during the first weeks of life, at least in terms of first breeding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.771

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207