Who Keeps the House after Divorcing? Partner and Nest Fidelity in the Long-Lived Alpine Swift
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractDespite the advantages of lasting pair bonds and the prevalence of monogamy, at least in avian species, some individuals switch mates (divorce). Divorce is generally considered to be adaptive (i.e., conferring net fitness benefits), although its causes and consequences often remain unclear, most notably regarding the genetic basis of this behavior. Using more than 30 years of data in a long-lived bird with obligate biparental care, the Alpine swift, we first described the overall patterns of mate and nest site fidelity and investigated the predictors of between-year divorce. We show that 16.6% of pairings ended in divorce, with low reproductive success and young age as predictors of divorce, and that males retained the nest site more often than females. By then studying individual repeatability and heritability of divorce, we show moderate repeatability in females and low repeatability in males and little additive genetic variance in either sex. Finally, we assessed the fitness consequences of divorce and report that an active decision to modify the pair bond (divorce) may be more beneficial than reactionary re-pairing following a partner's death. Overall, divorce may provide some reproductive benefits for Alpine swifts, but no microevolutionary potential of this behavior is evident in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".