MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230258812 · doi:10.1093/auk/117.4.996

The Role of Development, Parental Behavior, and Nestmate Competition in Fledging of Nestling Tree Swallows

2000· article· en· W4230258812 on OpenAlexaff
Trista Michaud, Marty L. Leonard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFledgeBroodBiologyAltricialNest (protein structural motif)ZoologyEcologyDemographyHatching

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fledging (i.e. leaving the nest) in altricial birds is a major step toward independence. The timing of this important event may be influenced by nestling development, parental behavior, and sibling interactions. In this study, we examine the effect of these factors on fledging in Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor). Wing length explained a significant proportion of the variance in fledging age across broods. Similarly, within broods, longer-winged nestlings fledged before shorter-winged nestlings. Feeding rate per nestling did not decrease in the period leading up to fledging, as might be expected if parents stimulated fledging by decreasing their feeding rate. Parental activity near the nest varied in that the frequency of parental passes and hovers within 1 m of the nest opening increased in the period before fledging. Brood size also explained a significant proportion of the variance in fledging age independent of wing length, although the direction of the relationship was not consistent across years. Finally, longer-winged nestlings spent more time in the nest opening and initiated fledging of the brood more often than did shorter-winged nestlings. Overall, our study suggests that nestling development is the most important determinant of fledging age in this species. Once a critical wing length has been reached, sibling interactions, and possibly parental behavior, may influence the timing of fledging.

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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations30
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207