MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6892304598 · doi:10.5061/dryad.wwpzgmsjr

Sexual maturity in Barn Owl (Tyto alba)

2021· dataset· en· W6892304598 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumageSexual maturityReproductionSexual selectionReproductive successPopulationSexual dimorphismMelanism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The age at first reproduction can significantly impact fitness. We investigated the possible source of variation in the age at first reproduction (“sexual maturity”) and its consequences for lifetime reproductive success in a wild population of barn owls. This raptor is sexually dimorphic for two melanin-based plumage traits shown to covary with sex-specific behaviour and physiology. We observed that females were sexually mature earlier than males, an effect that depended on the colour of their plumage and birth date. Among females born early in the season, dark melanic (i.e. more pheomelanic with large and many black feather spots) yearlings were sexually mature earlier than light melanic females. The relationship was in the opposite direction in those born late in the season. In yearling males, the opposite result, albeit less pronounced, was discovered, i.e. lightly melanic males born early in the season were sexually mature earlier than dark melanic males, an effect that was in the opposite direction in males that were born late in the season. Individuals that matured faster produced a larger number of fledglings per year than individuals that matured slower, an effect that was found only in dark melanic females and in light melanic males. Dark melanic females also achieved a higher lifetime reproductive success (LRS) than light melanic conspecifics. Our results suggest that a light melanic plumage is beneficial in males and a dark melanic plumage in females suggesting sexually antagonist selection.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.141

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.297 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDFrench-language works237,207