Size does not matter for male Marbled Salamanders (<i>Ambystoma</i> <i>opacum</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the phenotypic attributes that contribute to variance in mating and reproductive success is crucial in the study of evolution by sexual selection. In many animals, body size is an important trait because larger individuals enjoy greater fitness due to the ability to secure more mates and produce more offspring. Among males, this outcome is largely mediated by greater success in competition with rival males and (or) advantages in attractiveness to females. Here we tested the hypothesis that large male Marbled Salamanders (Ambystoma opacum (Gravenhorst, 1807)) mate with more females and produce more offspring than small males. In experimental breeding groups, we included males chosen specifically to represent a range of sizes. After gravid females mated and nested freely, we collected egg clutches and genotyped all adults and samples of hatchlings with highly variable microsatellite markers to assign paternity. Size had little effect on male mating and reproductive success. Breeding males were not bigger than nonbreeding males, mates of polyandrous females were not smaller than those of monogamous females, and there was no evidence for positive assortative mating by size. Although body size did not matter for male Marbled Salamanders, we documented considerable fitness variation and discuss alternative traits that could be undergoing sexual selection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".