MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predicting the evolution of sexual size dimorphism

2001· article· en· W1923754397 on OpenAlexafffund
J. Reeve, Daphne J. Fairbairn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSexual dimorphismBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Sexual selectionEvolutionary biologyNatural selectionTerm (time)StatisticsZoologyMathematicsPhysicsComputer scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lande’s (1980b, Evolution34: 292–305) equations for predicting the evolution of sexual size dimorphism (SSD) through frequency-dependent sexual selection, and frequency-independent natural selection, were tested against results obtained from a stochastic genetic simulation model. The SSD evolved faster than predicted, due to temporary increases in the genetic variance brought about by directional selection. Predictions for the magnitude of SSD at equilibrium were very accurate for weak sexual selection. With stronger sexual selection the total response was greater than predicted. Large changes in SSD can occur without significant long-term change in the genetic correlation between the sexes. Our results suggest that genetic correlations constrain both the short-term and long-term evolution of SSD less than predicted by the Lande model.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations156
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207