Nesting biology of the Tennessee Warbler, Vermivora peregrina, in northern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fourteen Tennessee Warbler, Vermivora peregrina, nests were monitored during the 1994 breeding season near Longlac, Ontario.Videocameras were used to record various aspects of parental care.In our study area, Tennessee Warblers nested in relatively dry, open areas.The edges of old logging roads and small clearings were favoured nesting locations.The nests were well concealed.Cover was provided by a variety of ground plants, in particular mosses, grasses, Bunchberry and Large-leaved Aster.The median clutch size of 11 nests was 6 eggs (range 5 to 7).Hatching success was 94%.The median brood size of 14 nests was 6 nestlings (range 4 to 7).The interval from the laying of the last egg to the hatching of the first nestling was 7-8 days.This is exceptionally short compared to that of other warbler species.A short incubation period may be an adaptation that allows the species to take maximum advantage of a pulsed food supply (i.e., Spruce Budworm) for nestling growth and development.The Mayfield estimate of nest success for Tennessee Warblers in this study (73.3%) was high compared to other ground-nesting songbird species.Male Tennessee Warblers provisioned their nestlings at higher rates than did their mates, especially during the first few days of nestling life.Feeding rates increased with increasing nestling age and brood size.Lepidoptera larvae and pupae were the most common food items in the diets of nestlings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".