MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248192110 · doi:10.1093/condor/108.1.238

Conflicting Temporal Changes in the Frequency and Intensity of Cowbird Parasitism on Four Common Hosts in Ontario over 130 Years

2006· article· en· W4248192110 on OpenAlexaffabout
Celia M. McLaren, Todd J. Underwood, Spencer G. Sealy

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParasitismCowbirdBrood parasiteNest (protein structural motif)BiologyEcologyZoologyHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We tested the hypothesis proposed by Friedmann (1963) that multiple parasitism (nests with more than one parasitic egg) by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater) is a recent phenomenon associated with increased densities of cowbirds. We used Ontario Nest Records Scheme data to quantify frequencies of parasitism and multiple parasitism on four common host species over the last 130 years. Frequency of multiple parasitism significantly increased over all decades only in Chipping Sparrows (Spizella passerina). We also analyzed data separately before and after 1970 because at about this time cowbird abundance began to stabilize and then decline. Pre-1970, multiple parasitism significantly increased on Chipping Sparrows and Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia), but neither had significant trends post-1970. There were no significant trends in multiple parasitism on Red-eyed Vireos (Vireo olivaceus) or Northern Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis). For all time periods analyzed, there were no significant trends in overall frequency of parasitism on any species. Our results provide limited support for the hypothesis that temporal variation in parasitism patterns has followed changes in cowbird density over the past century.

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 score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207