Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental care is assumed to be costly in that it requires sustained, high-intensity activity sufficient to cause costs of reproduction (decreased survival and future fecundity of parents). Costs of reproduction are, in turn, thought to have a physiological basis where intense activity causes a decrease in parental condition. However, attempts to identify the physiological basis of costs of reproduction have produced mixed results. Here, I argue that in birds, the central idea that parental care represents sustained, high-intensity work might be incorrect. Specifically: (a) the duration of intense activity associated with chick-rearing might be quite limited; (b) flight, the most obvious sustained, high-intensity activity, might only represent a small component of an individual's overall activity budget; (c) some (high-quality) individuals might be able to tolerate costs of intense activity, either owing to their physiological state or because they have access to more resources, without perturbation of physiological homeostasis; and (d) individuals might utilise other mechanisms to modulate costs of activity, for example, mass loss, again avoiding more substantial physiological costs. Furthermore, I highlight the important fact that life-history theory predicts that reproductive trade-offs should only be expected under food stress. Most birds breed in spring and early summer precisely because of seasonal increases in food abundance, and so it is unclear how often parents are food stressed. Consequently, I argue that there are many reasons why costs of reproduction, and any physiological signature of these costs, might be quite rare, both temporally (in different years) and among individuals.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".