A confirmed case of social polygyny in Eastern Whip-poor-will ( <i>Antrostomus vociferus</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birds that are typically socially monogamous occasionally engage in social polygyny. By investigating the circumstances and consequences of atypical social polygyny, we can expand knowledge on the flexibility of their social systems. The Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus) is a socially monogamous nightjar that breeds in the northeastern USA and eastern Canada. We studied Eastern Whip-poor-will nesting ecology within the alvar barrens regions of Jefferson County, NY, USA, by tracking individuals to nests with ground-based telemetry during the 2024 breeding season. After locating nests, we monitored them with continuous-recording video cameras. In July 2024, through a combination of telemetry tracking, video cameras, and direct observations, we confirmed that a radio-tagged male was paired with and concurrently attending nests of two females. A neighboring male had died earlier in the breeding season, which may have contributed to this instance of social polygyny. Nest camera data suggest that the male involved in polygyny reduced parental investment in at least one of the nests during egg incubation. Although the main social system of Eastern Whip-poor-wills is social monogamy, this case of social polygyny indicates that they may adopt non-monogamous systems in response to unexpected events during the breeding season.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".