MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043766787

Two Subspecies of Warbling Vireo Differ in Their Responses to Cowbird Eggs

2000· article· en· W7043766787 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceU.S. Geological SurveyMcMaster University
KeywordsSubspeciesPopulationLarvaCowbirdSelection (genetic algorithm)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using real cowbird eggs, we experimentally parasitized 41 nests of the Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus), three each in British Columbia and Colorado, five in Montana, and 30 in Manitoba, and recorded whether the cowbird eggs were accepted or rejected.Cowbird eggs were accepted at all nests tested in British Columbia and Colorado, but both acceptance and rejection were recorded in Montana.In Manitoba, all cowbird eggs were rejected (29 by puncture-ejection, one by desertion).The results suggest acceptance by a western subspecies of the Warbling Vireo, V. g. swainsonii, and rejection by the eastern subspecies, V. g. gilvus.The geographic variability in acceptance/rejection agrees with suggested taxonomic differences for the Warbling Vireo, i.e., that there are two species and that neither appears to vary in response to the presence of cowbird eggs in its nests.Species of birds that suffer reduced reproductive success when parasitized by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Jolothrus ater) should evolve strategies that reduce or eliminate the costs of parasitism, especially because cowbird eggs are distinguishable from the eggs of most host species.Adaptations for rejection of parasitic eggs from nests have evolved in some species, but most species accept cowbird eggs (Rothstein 1975(Rothstein , 1990)).Why only a few species reject cowbird eggs has been attributed to the duration of exposure to the selective pressure of cowbird parasitism (Rothstein 1975) or constraints on the ability of small hosts to eject cowbird eggs from the nest (Rohwer and Spaw 1988).Among the ejecter species, the larger ones grasp and remove cowbird eggs with their bills, whereas the smaller species puncture-eject them (Rohwer and Spaw 1988).Recently, Sealy (1996) determined experimentally that the Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) removes cowbird eggs from its nests.At 15 g, it is the smallest species in North America known to do so (Sealy 1996).This species' responses to cowbird eggs also appear to vary across its geographic range.A literature survey of the frequency of parasitism in various populations of Warbling Vireos (table 2 of Sealy 1996) revealed that 0 to 11% of Warbling Vireo nests were parasitized in populations within and east of the Central Great Plains, whereas 50 to 70% of nests were parasitized in populations west of the Great Plains.Where experimental data are lacking, Friedmann et al. (1977) assumed that a species accepts cowbird eggs (i.e., is an accepter) if 20% or more of its nests are recorded parasitized.Under this definition, western populations of the Warbling Vireo would be classified as accepters, whereas central and eastern populations reject parasitism.Sealy's (1996) experiments on Warbling Vireos in Manitoba support the assessment of birds there as rejecters.

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.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.228 · 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