MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243336715 · doi:10.1093/auk/121.2.463

Parental Provisioning and Nestling Departure Decisions: A Supplementary Feeding Experiment in Tufted Puffins (Fratercula Cirrhata) on Triangle Island, British Columbia

2004· article· en· W4243336715 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carina Gjerdrum

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFledgeBiologyPredationNest (protein structural motif)ProvisioningEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I used a supplemental feeding experiment to determine whether adult Tufted Puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) would decrease provisioning effort in response to a reduction in nestling nutritional requirements, and to investigate the relationship between parental provisioning effort and timing of fledging. As predicted, parents of the supplemented nestlings decreased the number of provisioning trips but did not alter bill-load size or prey composition. Supplemental feeding significantly increased the growth of the culmen and tarsus but had no detectable effect on wing growth or body mass of chicks. Supplemented nestlings fledged significantly older than control nestlings. The maximum mass attained by the nestling and the age at which mass peaked also influenced timing of fledging. These results demonstrate that fledging age is influenced by both the energy provided by the parents and the nestling's developmental state and are consistent with the hypothesis that nestlings time their departure from the nest based on the costs and benefits of remaining.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.667
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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