MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4230712392 · doi:10.24124/2017/1338

Determinants of making success in female Tree Swallows (Tachycineta Bicolor)

2017· dissertation· en· W4230712392 on OpenAlexaff
Lisha L. Berzins

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumageBiologyMatingZoologyMate choiceReproductive successEcologySexual selectionNest boxOrnamentsDemographyPredationGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Females from a wide variety of taxa display elaborate ornaments and aggressive behaviours that are similar to those expressed by males. Although recent empirical investigation has demonstrated that ornamental traits and behaviours of females may function by attracting mates or signalling competitive ability when competing against conspecifics for access to mates and resources, less is known about how such traits influence the mating success of free-living female birds. For my research, I experimentally examined how variation in plumage brightness and behaviour of female tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) influenced their mating success. Plumage brightness of females had no influence on investment in parental care or mating strategies of males, or the quality of social mate paired to the female. These results suggest that bright plumage is not a signal of attractiveness preferred by male tree swallows. In contrast, I report evidence that plumage brightness of female tree swallows is involved in agonistic interactions with conspecifics. Females whose plumage brightness was enhanced to signal high quality were less able to retain their nest site than females whose plumage brightness was reduced to signal low quality. This suggests that females displaying bright plumage may be challenged by conspecifics of high quality to test the quality signalled by bright plumage, and is supported by the finding that females displaying enhanced plumage brightness suffered social costs, such as delaying breeding and producing low-quality nestlings. Despite these costs, females in the enhanced plumage brightness treatment mated with extra-pair males that were higher quality than their social mate. Behaviour of females, manipulated by elevating testosterone (T), lowered the proportion of extra-pair offspring in the broods of T-treated females. Females manipulated so that the androgenic and estrogenic actions of T were blocked also produced fewer extra-pair... .

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→