MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160620937 · doi:10.5061/dryad.4qrfj6qnz

Permanent and temporary mate-switching in a long-lived seabird: Insights from a 64-year study

2025· dataset· en· W7160620937 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid Pollet, Liam Taylor, Robert Mauck, Patricia Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabirdPopulationPair bondMate choiceAdaptation (eye)Quality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In long-lived monogamous animals, pair bonds play a crucial role in breeding success. In many predominantly monogamous animals, however, there is often some degree of mate-switching. Mate-switching may represent an opportunity to acquire a higher quality partner or breeding site following breeding failure. Using a 64-year dataset, we investigated the dynamics of mate-switching in Leach’s storm-petrels (Hydrobates leucorhous). We observed that, on average, 4.3 % of pairs permanently switched mates each year (i.e., permanent mate switch), with an increasing rate in recent years. A small proportion (1.1 % annual average) of pairs switched mates but reunited in a later year (i.e., temporary mate switch). As expected from previous studies, breeding failure was a significant predictor of permanent mate-switching. But temporary mate-switching was unrelated to breeding failure, suggesting these two kinds of mate-switching are caused by different decision-making processes. Rising global mean temperatures (GMT) was associated with increases in both temporary and permanent mate switching rates, raising the possibility that ongoing climate change will destabilize future population dynamics in this declining seabird species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207