MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FERTILIZATION SELECTION ON EGG AND JELLY-COAT SIZE IN THE SAND DOLLAR DENDRASTER EXCENTRICUS

2001· article· en· W1976390322 on OpenAlexaff
Don R. Levitan, Stacey D. Irvine

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsBamfield Marine Sciences Centre
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyHuman fertilizationCoatSpermZoologySelection (genetic algorithm)EcologyAnatomyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organisms with external fertilization are often sperm limited, and in echinoids, larger eggs have a higher probability of fertilization than smaller eggs. This difference is thought to be a result of the more frequent sperm-egg collisions experienced by larger targets. Here we report how two components of egg target size, the egg cell and jelly coat, contributed to fertilization success in a selection experiment. We used a cross-sectional analysis of correlated characters to estimate the selection gradients on egg and jelly-coat size in five replicate male pairs of the sand dollar Dendraster excentricus. Results indicated that eggs with larger cells and jelly coats were preferentially fertilized under sperm limitation in the laboratory. The selection gradients were an average of 922% steeper for egg than for jelly-coat size. The standardized selection gradients for egg and jelly-coat size were similar. Our results suggest that fertilization selection can act on both egg-cell and jelly-coat size but that an increase in egg-cell volume is much more likely to increase fertilization success than an equal change in jelly-coat volume. The strengths of the selection gradients were inversely related to the correlation of egg traits across replicate egg clutches. This result suggests the importance of replication in studies of selection of correlated characters.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207