MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391475558 · doi:10.5962/p.363779

Ectoparasites in lekking Sharp-tailed Grouse, Tympanuchus phasianellus

2001· article· en· W4391475558 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Leonard J. S. Tsuji, Jim D. Karagatzides, Gerardo Deiluiis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLek matingGrouseBustardGeographyBiologyZoologyEcologyMate choiceMatingHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate the validity of assumptions based on the parasite avoidance model, fifty-two male Sharp-tailed Grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) collected in northern Ontario from six separate leks were examined.Ectoparasitic burdens were recorded along with traits (feather damage, hematomas, body condition, body mass) and cues (territorial position, age) which may be used by the female to discriminate among males for their parasite loads.Neither assumption of the transmission avoidance model.was met.Little variation in ectoparasite number existed in the breeding population as a whole or within individual leks.None of the traits or cues measured were correlated consistently with ectoparasitic burdens.These results suggest that randomly mating females would, on "average," mate with lightly infested individuals.Therefore, benefit to a discriminating female Sharp-tailed Grouse would be negligible.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207