MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958633817

Nature calls: Is there an ecological basis for abnormal behaviour and breeding problems in captive psittacines?

2018· article· en· W2958633817 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Mellor, Georgia Mason, Yvonne van Zeeland, Nico J. Schoemaker, Heather McDonald Kinkaid, Michael Kinkaid

Bibliographic record

VenueBristol Research (University of Bristol) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyBasis (linear algebra)BiologyMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psittaciformes are popular as pets, and as aviculture species. However, in captivity they show variation among species in susceptibility to problems such as stereotypic behaviours and poor breeding. For example, self-inflicted feather-damaging behaviour (e.g., self-plucking) is prevalent in African grey parrots, Psittacus erithacus, but rare in Senegal parrots, Poicephalus senegalus; while monk parakeets, Myiopsitta monachus, breed readily, yet blue-throated macaws, Ara glaucogularis, do not. Comparing species using phylogenetic comparative methods could help provide insights into the fundamental bases of such problems; thereby identifying species pre-disposed to be good pets and inform species’ ex situ conservation management. This study therefore investigated relationships between various species-typical biological traits proposed to affect parrot welfare and three welfare-sensitive captive outcomes: feather damaging behaviour (FDB), other stereotypic behaviours (SB), and hatch rate (HR). Prevalences of FDB and other SBs were gleaned via a survey of pet parrot owners, yielding information on 53 species (~1,380 birds). Captive HRs (chicks hatched/breeding pair/p.a.) for 122 species were taken from Allen and Johnson (1990 Psittacine Captive Breeding Survey). Next, phylogenetic generalised least squares regressions were used to examine the predictive power of the following aspects of species-typical biology: sociality (maximum group size, communal roosting); foraging effort; ecological flexibility (diet and habitat breadth); intelligence (innovation rate, relative brain volume); and IUCN conservation status. Communal roosting (T4, 33=1.87, P=0.04, λ = 0.54 [one-tailed]) predicted FDB, while higher foraging effort (T3, 34=-0.10, P=0.06, λ=0.65 [one-tailed]) tended to predict FDB. Relatively large brain size predicted other SBs (whole body: T3, 36=2.90, P=0.01, λ=0.27; oral: T2, 38=2.36, P=0.02, λ=0). More threatened species had lower captive HR (T5, 75=-2.12, P=0.02, λ=0.34 [one-tailed]). These traits can thus be considered species-level risk factors for poor parrot welfare, and provide an evidence-based platform to inspire ways of tackling these specific problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBristol Research (University of Bristol)Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207