Geographic and Ecological Variation in Clutch Size of Tree Swallows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many birds, populations breeding at higher latitudes have larger clutch sizes. It has been hypothesized that this relationship results from the greater availability of food at higher latitudes. We examined geographic variation in clutch size of Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor) in relation to latitude, longitude, laying date, breeding density, elevation, and summer actual evapotranspiration (AE). AE is a measure of terrestrial primary productivity, and we assumed that it was correlated with resource abundance. Clutch size data were compiled from nest records throughout the breeding range in the United States and Canada (n = 7,459). Summer AE estimates were made from long-term climatological records, and breeding density was estimated from Breeding Bird Surveys. All variables were averaged for each 1° block of latitude and longitude (n = 85 latilong blocks). We found a strong positive relationship between clutch size and latitude. Absolute levels of resource abundance (summer AE) were not related to clutch size but were related inversely to latitude and longitude. After controlling for the effects of confounding variables, clutch size was related positively to latitude and relative resource abundance (summer AE after controlling for breeding density). Our results are consistent with Ashmole's hypothesis that relative, rather than absolute, levels of resource abundance determine at least some of the variation in clutch size.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".