Does experimentally altered plumage brightness influence extra-pair mating success in female Tree Swallows (<i>Tachycineta bicolor</i>)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent empirical evidence suggests that ornamental traits displayed by female birds may reflect aspects of their quality, and function during competitive interactions and (or) social mate attraction; however, less is known about how such traits influence extra-pair paternity. In Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808)), plumage brightness of females signals their quality and may be related to extra-pair paternity if it enables them to invade the territories of other females to seek extra-pair copulations and (or) if potential extra-pair mates perceive their plumage brightness as attractive. Therefore, to examine whether the plumage brightness displayed by females influence rates of extra-pair paternity and the number of sires per brood, we experimentally enhanced and reduced the plumage brightness of females relative to controls. Our results showed that plumage brightness treatment of the female did not influence the number of extra-pair offspring in nests or the likelihood of a brood containing extra-pair offspring. Additionally, the number of extra-pair males siring offspring within the broods of females did not differ by plumage brightness treatment. Although extra-pair paternity has been shown to be beneficial for female Tree Swallows, our results suggest that plumage brightness of females does not influence their ability to engage in extra-pair mating.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".