MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978931970 · doi:10.1111/jeb.12495

Selection on female behaviour fluctuates with offspring environment

2014· article· en· W1978931970 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan W. Taylor, Stan Boutin, M. M. Humphries, Andrew G. McAdam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Alberta
FundersCollege of Natural Science, Michigan State UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Disruptive selectionCompetition (biology)FecundityNatural selectionDirectional selectionEcologyJuvenilePopulationStabilizing selectionZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporal variation in selection has long been proposed as a mechanism by which genetic variation could be maintained despite short-term strong directional selection and has been invoked to explain the maintenance of consistent individual differences in behaviour. We tested the hypothesis that ecological changes through time lead to fluctuating selection, which could promote the maintenance of variation in female behavioural traits in a wild population of North American red squirrels. As predicted, linear selection gradients on female aggression and activity significantly fluctuated across years depending on the level of competition among juveniles for vacant territories. This selection acted primarily through juvenile overwinter survival rather than maternal fecundity. Incorporating uncertainty in individual measures of behaviour reduced the magnitude of annual selection gradients and increased uncertainty in these estimates, but did not affect the overall pattern of temporal fluctuations in natural selection that coincided with the intensity of competition for vacant territories. These temporal fluctuations in selection might, therefore, promote the maintenance of heritable individual differences in behaviour in this wild red squirrel population.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations38
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207