MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971956702 · doi:10.1139/z05-057

Multiple paternity in the western terrestrial garter snake, <i>Thamnophis elegans</i>

2005· article· en· W1971956702 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trenton W. J. Garner, Karl W. Larsen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyOffspringInbreedingZoologyReproductionInbreeding avoidanceEcologyEvolutionary biologyMatingGeneticsMate choicePregnancyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple paternity may be a widespread phenomenon in snakes, but studies to date are inadequate for assessing the effect that phylogeny may have on paternity. Hypothetical mechanisms responsible for polyandry in snakes include intersexual conflicts and avoidance of genetic incompatibilities due to inbreeding. We analysed the offspring of six litters of western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans (Baird and Girard, 1853)) using microsatellite DNA polymorphisms. We directly detected multiple paternity in half of the litters, one of which exhibited triple paternity, and substantial skew of paternal contributions in all multiply sired litters. Females producing multiply sired offspring were heavier postpartum and produced larger litters, suggesting that larger females that invest more in reproduction are more likely to be multiply mated, a result supporting the hypothesis that polyandry is due to intersexual conflict. Continued investigations of paternity patterns within this genus are under way, but if the factors driving polyandry in snakes are to be identified, controlled laboratory crosses are required.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207