MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904499300 · doi:10.1017/s0266467418000378

Nest building by Darwin’s finches as an overlooked seed dispersal mechanism

2018· article· en· W2904499300 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Tropical Ecology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)GerminationBiological dispersalBiologySeed dispersalShrubEcologyDarwin (ADL)PredationBird nestBotanyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Caliochory, or seed dispersal by birds as nest material, has been reported for several species, but its effectiveness remains unclear in most cases. Darwin’s finches are traditionally regarded as seed predators, but the observation of two nests challenges this assumption by demonstrating that they can act as seed dispersers via caliochory. Darwin’s finches incorporate cotton-like materials into their nests, including seeds of Darwin’s cotton ( Gossypium darwinii ), a shrub endemic to the Galápagos (Ecuador). Bird nests typically break down after intense rainfall, so the seeds incorporated into nests might benefit from suitable conditions for germination. By simulating the germination conditions experienced over a 72-h period by cotton seeds in a naturally fallen nest, this study qualitatively confirms the long-term viability of at least a small fraction of the seeds at the surface of the nest. Darwin’s finches might therefore provide seed-dispersal services to Darwin’s cotton and possibly, other native and exotic plants of the Galápagos commonly incorporated into nests. However, larger confirmatory studies are needed.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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