MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1483161471 · doi:10.1111/evo.12654

Frequency-dependent fitness in gynodioecious<i>Lobelia siphilitica</i>

2015· article· en· W1483161471 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Ruth Rivkin, Andrea L. Case, Christina M. Caruso

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Evolutionary Synthesis CenterNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGynodioecyBiologyFrequency-dependent selectionPollenSelection (genetic algorithm)OvuleBotanyDioecy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selection is frequency dependent when an individual's fitness depends on the frequency of its phenotype. Frequency-dependent selection should be common in gynodioecious plants, where individuals are female or hermaphroditic; if the fitness of females is limited by the availability of pollen to fertilize their ovules, then they should have higher fitness when rare than when common. To test whether the fitness of females is frequency dependent, we manipulated the sex ratio in arrays of gynodioecious Lobelia siphilitica. To test whether fitness was frequency dependent because of variation in pollen availability, we compared open-pollinated and supplemental hand-pollinated plants. Open-pollinated females produced more seeds when they were rare than when they were common, as expected if fitness is negatively frequency dependent. However, hand-pollinated females also produced more seeds when they were rare, indicating that variation in pollen availability was not the cause of frequency-dependent fitness. Instead, fitness was frequency dependent because both hand- and open-pollinated females opened more flowers when they were rare than when they were common. This plasticity in the rate of anthesis could cause fitness to be frequency dependent even when reproduction is not pollen limited, and thus expand the conditions under which frequency-dependent selection operates in gynodioecious 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

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

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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207