Allometry and sexually dimorphic traits in male anurans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Allometry of secondary sexual traits has been the subject of recent debate, and the generality of positive allometry and its association with sexual selection have been recently questioned. Whereas some studies suggest an almost universal positive allometry for traits under sexual selection and isometry or a negative allometry for traits not under such pressure, other studies argue that this pattern results from the study of exaggerated (ornamental) traits. To answer the call for an examination of the allometry of less-exaggerated sexually selected traits, we have examined morphological data from 14 sexually dimorphic traits and six monomorphic traits from three anuran species. Although we found evidence of positive allometry in male secondary sexual traits of several species and populations, not all nonsexual traits were isometric or exhibited negative allometry. Furthermore, our results indicate that larger traits in the populations that we studied were not associated with greater allometric slopes. Therefore, our study is in line with the contention suggesting no specific kind of allometric pattern for sexual and nonsexual characters, and we can only advocate for further investigation of trait allometry and sexual selection to understand the complexity underlying the evolution of allometry in sexual traits.
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 | 0.001 | 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".