MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6958971609 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7750309

Supplementary material from "Population density and timing of breeding mediate effects of early life conditions on recruitment"

2025· other· en· W6958971609 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileFledgeContext (archaeology)PopulationSelection (genetic algorithm)OffspringLife history theoryLife history

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying the factors driving juvenile recruitment is crucial for predicting the response of populations to environmental change. Importantly, how early life conditions carry over to influence recruitment may be highly dependent on the context in which they occur. For example, the effects of challenging early-life conditions may be more pronounced under high densities or when young are born late in the season. We examined the ecological factors influencing local recruitment spanning three decades in Savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis) breeding on Kent Island, NB, Canada. The effect of nestling mass on recruitment depended on both population density and fledging date. At low population densities or early in the breeding season, nestling mass had little effect on recruitment probability. At high population densities or later in the breeding season, mass had a stronger effect, with heavier individuals more likely to recruit. Lighter fledglings may have lower recruitment under challenging conditions due to lower competitive ability, lower mobility, and greater susceptibility to resource limitation relative to heavier fledglings. Our findings have important implications for life history evolution and selection on body size in a changing world, highlighting the relationships between population density, timing of breeding, and offspring recruitment.

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)0.000
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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.244 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207