Reproductive characteristics of Drosophila hibisci in the Northern Territory, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive traits of Drosophila hibisci collected at 18 sites in the Northern Territory (NT) of Australia in May, 1998, as well as at two sites in north Queensland, in June, 1998, were compared to those from earlier work on a cline in ovariole number in D. hibisci along the east coast of Australia. The flies in the NT were considerably smaller, but had more ovarioles than comparably-sized flies on the east coast. Although the flies on the east coast showed an increasing number of ovarioles in populations at increasing distances from the equator, these new populations, both on the east coast and in the NT, reversed this trend, producing a generally U-shaped pattern of ovariole number with latitude among all populations. The northernmost and southernmost populations allocate more to ovariole numbers than populations in intermediate latitudes. Ovariole number is closely related to body size of females in all populations, but the regression coefficient is small at intermediate latitudes and increases at the northern and southern ends of the distribution. Egg volumes primarily varied with body size of the female (positive) and number of ovarioles per female (negatively), producing a generally inverted U-shaped pattern of egg volumes with latitude. Reproductive allocation patterns, but not thorax size or ovariole number, varied significantly in two samples taken 10 days apart at one NT site. This variation probably results from environmental differences across generations of developing larvae and is consistent with our earlier suggestion of substantial effects of the environment, primarily rainfall and temperature, on reproductive allocation in D. hibisci.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".