MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lateral plate asymmetry, diet and parasitism in threespine stickleback

2001· article· en· W1507586657 on OpenAlexafffundabout
T. E. Reimchen, Patrik Nosil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSticklebackBiologyParasitismGasterosteusFluctuating asymmetryZoologyEcologyHost (biology)Fish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Individuals with random left–right departures from bilateral symmetry are predicted to exhibit fitness reduction including increased parasitism. In an insular lake population of stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) from the Queen Charlotte Islands, Western Canada, phenotypes with high or low number of lateral bony plates exhibited increased plate asymmetry relative to modal phenotypes. Asymmetric lateral plate phenotypes had increased prevalence and to a lesser extent intensity of parasitism relative to symmetric individuals, suggesting that differences in genetic resistance to pathogens contributed to unequal parasitism. The effect occurred mainly in the larger adults and during the warmest season, which may be due to the high metabolic costs incurred during the summer breeding season. Dietary differences between symmetric and asymmetric phenotypes were also detected and could contribute to unequal infection rates by mediating exposure to infected prey items. Our study, which is one of the first long-term field assessments of asymmetry and parasitism, yields results that are consistent with studies linking asymmetry to reduced fitness and indicate that lateral plate asymmetry can be an indicator of poor individual quality, despite its apparent directionality.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations53
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207