Mate fidelity in a double-brooded urban passerine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every bird requires a mate to have a successful breeding attempt.After each brood, they are faced with the choice to stay with or separate from this mate.The choice to stay together is referred to as mate fidelity and can benefit the future reproductive success of the pairs who exhibit it.Despite these benefits, separation is still common in many populations of passerines, leading to the question of the costs of mate fidelity and under what circumstances these costs might outweigh the benefits.In this study, I examined the frequency of mate fidelity in a population of urban dwelling European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) over 15 years.Mate fidelity or subsequent separation events were then compared to average brood condition of each brood raised together to test if any correlation between them existed.Tests were run between the first and last brood raised by a faithful pair, and between the first brood from a faithful pair and the first and only brood raised by a pair that subsequently separated to determine if brood condition affected fidelity in the population.While mean brood condition followed the prediction that broods preceding fidelity would be higher in condition than those which preceded separation, the difference between the two categories was not statistically significant in either test.These findings still warrant investigation, as the difference in condition was noticeable, and sample sizes were small, so we may have lacked the statistical power to detect such influence.Brood condition could still influence the frequency of mate fidelity within this population along with other possibilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".