MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1984276019 · doi:10.1139/z05-006

Effects of constrained females on offspring sex ratios of<i>Nasonia vitripennis</i>in relation to local mate competition theory

2004· article· en· W1984276019 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. H. King, Jackson D'souza

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesNorthern Illinois University
KeywordsNasonia vitripennisHaplodiploidyBiologySex ratioParasitoid waspSex allocationOffspringCompetition (biology)MatingSpermParasitoidZoologyHymenopteraEcologyDemographyPteromalidaePopulationPregnancyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical studies of how constrained females affect sex ratio are few. Constrained females are those that can produce only sons (e.g., in haplodiploid species, females that have not mated or older females that have used up their sperm). In the parasitoid wasp Nasonia vitripennis (Walker, 1836), failure to mate soon after emergence increased the probability of a female being constrained and thus affected sex ratio directly. Local mate competition theory shows that whether a female is constrained can also affect sex ratio indirectly by affecting what sex ratio other females produce. However, this was not the case in N. vitripennis. A female's sex ratio was not significantly different when she was with another young mated female versus a virgin female or an old mated female depleted of sperm. These results suggest that N. vitripennis females may be unable to recognize whether another female is constrained. The increased proportion of sons in response to other females relative to when alone did not persist the day after exposure.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→