MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Suboptimal timing of reproduction in <i>Lobelia inflata</i> may be a conservative bet-hedging strategy

2003· article· en· W1566762429 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew M. Simons, Mark O. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyBoltingReproductionPerennial plantLife history theoryRange (aeronautics)Growing seasonEcologySubspeciesLife historyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age and size at reproduction are important components of fitness, and are variable both within and among angiosperm species. The fitness consequences of such life-history variation are most readily studied in organisms that reproduce only once in their lifetime. The timing of the onset of reproduction (bolting) in the monocarpic perennial, Lobelia inflata, occurs over a range of dates within a season, and may be postponed to a later year. Empirical relationships among life-history traits, derived from over 950 wild-growing and experimentally manipulated plants in the field, are used to model an optimal changing size threshold (norm of reaction) for bolting over the growing season. Comparisons are made between observed and expected norms of reaction governing bolting. An apparently suboptimal bolting schedule that precludes bolting beyond an early (conservative) date is observed, and is found to be qualitatively consistent with conservative bet hedging under unpredictable season lengths. On this basis we propose the schedule of bolting as a plausible example of a conservative bet-hedging strategy. The results underscore the critical need for long-term studies of fluctuating selection to distinguish suboptimality from bet hedging.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
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

Citations88
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207