Data_Sheet_2_Do Female Songbirds Avoid a Mammalian Nest Predator When Selecting Their Nest Site?.xlsx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Perceived predation risk can elicit strong behavioral responses in potential prey. During nest building, songbirds exhibit anti-predator behaviors under experimental conditions. Here, we hypothesized that females of two ground-nesting songbird species, the Ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapilla) and the Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus), would use naturally available cues of predation risk when selecting their nest site, thereby avoiding activity hotspots of Eastern Chipmunks (Tamias striatus), a predator on songbird nests and fledglings. Chipmunks are highly vocal, thus providing cues of their presence. We mapped chipmunk detections and songbird nests over four successive years in study plots located in mature deciduous forest of New Brunswick, Canada. Chipmunk activity varied by an order of magnitude among study plots and years. Nests were built further away from chipmunk detections than expected by chance in some, but not all, plot-year combinations. When comparing study plots, the proportion of nests built within hotspots of chipmunk activity was four times lower in the two plots where chipmunk activity was highest. Yet, we did not find clear evidence that chipmunk avoidance provided fitness benefits, possibly because this behavior procured little protection at high chipmunk densities. The persistence of this avoidance behavior in our focal species of ground-nesting songbirds might be linked to the benefits it procures at intermediate chipmunk densities.</p>
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.495 | 0.031 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".