Site selection and repeatability in Brown-Headed Cowbird (<i>Molothrus ater</i>) parasitism of Eastern Phoebe (<i>Sayornis phoebe</i>) nests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproductive success of obligate brood parasitic birds depends on their ability to seek out heterospecific nests. Some nests are more suitable for parasitism than others and, for example, parasitic females may benefit from laying eggs preferentially and repeatedly at safer sites. Observations on patterns of Brown-headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism on Eastern Phoebes (Sayornis phoebe) across 2 years suggested that parasitism occurred at above chance levels during the first rather than the second nesting attempts and at nests located under eaves rather than bridges. Previously parasitized nests were more likely to be parasitized again in the subsequent breeding season. Sites under eaves and bridges did not differ in whether Brown-headed Cowbirds could be detected in the proximity of the nest. However, nests from first nesting attempts and nests under eaves were less likely to be lost as a result of structural failure of the Eastern Phoebe's mud nest. These data suggest that site discrimination by Brown-headed Cowbirds leads to adaptive patterns of parasitism among available Eastern Phoebe nests.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".