Data from: Correlates of alternative migratory strategies in western bluebirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial migration occurs when only some animals in a population migrate. While evidence suggests that migratory strategies are partially controlled by genes, individual and environmental conditions which alter the cost‐benefit trade‐off of migration among individuals are also likely to play a role. Three hypotheses have been advanced to explain condition‐dependent partial migration: the arrival time, dominance, and body size hypotheses. In this study, we asked whether these hypotheses explained differences in migratory strategy among individuals in a partially migratory population of western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana) breeding in southern British Columbia, Canada. We used stable hydrogen isotope signatures in claw tissue to determine migratory strategy of individual bluebirds, and examined patterns of migration at both individual and population levels. The proportion of resident bluebirds varied significantly over the three years of the study, and across study sites. Several migrants switched to the resident strategy between years; however, we found no evidence of strategy switching in the opposite direction. Young birds were significantly more likely to be resident than older birds, a pattern which could arise if early arrival is particularly important for birds obtaining a territory for the first time. Furthermore, young females were the most likely of all sex‐age classes to be resident, which may reflect a survival advantage of residency for young females. Finally, birds mated assortatively by migratory strategy and isotopic evidence suggests that members of a pair often wintered in the same place. Our results provided no support for the dominance or body size hypotheses, and only limited support for the arrival time hypothesis in bluebirds. However, taken together, we suggest that our findings indicate that social factors may influence migratory strategies in this system.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".