MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396804805 · doi:10.1675/063.046.0405

Post-Fledging Parental Care in Tree-Nesting Double-Crested Cormorants (Nannopterum auritum)

2024· article· en· W4396804805 on OpenAlexaff
Gail S. Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterbirds · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFledgeNesting (process)CormorantZoologyPaternal careGeographyBiologyFisheryEcologyPredationPregnancyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Post-fledging parental care occurs in a wide range of colonial waterbird species but data on the behavior are limited. The behavior is hypothesized to contribute towards offspring survivorship, but opportunities for post-fledging parental care are constrained for migratory species. Two datasets were used to examine the behavior in a Great Lakes tree-nesting Double-crested Cormorant (Nannopterum auritum) colony: annual monitoring of nest success, and focal observations of successful nests. For eight nesting seasons (2012–2019) a total of 631 sample nests were tracked for nest success, fledge date, number of chicks fledged, and post-fledging adult attendance at the nest site. During the post-fledging period, 52.2% of successful nests (n = 425) had adult attendance. Fledge date was a predictor of post-fledging adult attendance (earlier nests more likely to have the behavior) but not number of chicks fledged or year of observation. Post-fledging adult attendance was estimated to average 15.9 days in length. Focal observations confirmed that fledglings visited a nest and were fed if a parent was present (10/11 times). These findings confirmed post-fledging parental care in tree-nesting Double-crested Cormorants, but late nesting birds have reduced opportunity to provision after fledging.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterbirdsSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207