Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theory suggests that the net benefit of allocating resources to a sexual trait depends both on the strength of sexual selection on that trait and on individual condition. This predicts a tight coevolution between sexual dimorphism and condition dependence and suggests that these patterns of within-sex and between-sex variation may share a common genetic and developmental basis. Although condition-dependent expression of sexual traits is widely documented, the extent of covariation between condition dependence and sexual dimorphism remains poorly known. I investigated the effects of condition (larval diet quality) on multivariate sexual dimorphism in the fly Telostylinus angusticollis (Neriidae). Condition determined the direction of sexual size dimorphism and modulated sexual shape dimorphism by affecting allometric slopes and/or intercepts of sexually homologous traits in both sexes. Although the greatest responses to condition manipulation were observed in male sexual traits, both sexual and nonsexual traits exhibited substantial variation in the nature and magnitude of condition effects. Nonetheless, condition dependence and sexual dimorphism were remarkably congruent: variation in the strength of condition effects on male traits explained more than 90% of the variation in the magnitude of sexual dimorphism, whether quantified in terms of trait size or allometric slope. The genetic mechanisms that give rise to multivariate sexual dimorphism in body shape thus function in a strongly condition-dependent manner in this species, suggesting a common genetic basis for body shape variation within and between sexes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".