MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sexual size dimorphism and timing of spring migration in birds

2003· article· en· W1986274343 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelley J. Kissner, Patrick J. Weatherhead, Charles M. Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsBirds CanadaCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBird Studies Canada
KeywordsSexual dimorphismBiologyPasserineSexual selectionMatingSelection (genetic algorithm)EcologyNatural selectionZoologyMating systemDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sexually selected traits are limited by selection against those traits in other fitness components, such as survival. Thus, sexual selection favouring large size in males should be balanced by higher mortality of larger males. However, evidence from red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) indicates that large males survive better than small males. A survival advantage to large size could result from males migrating north in early spring, when harsh weather favours large size for energetic reasons. From this hypothesis we predicted that, among species, sex differences in body size should be correlated with sex differences in timing of spring migration. The earlier males migrate relative to females, the larger they should be relative to females. We tested this prediction using a comparative analysis of data collected from 30 species of passerine birds captured on migration. After controlling for social mating system, we found that sexual size dimorphism and difference in arrival dates of males and females were significantly positively correlated. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that selection for survival ability promotes sexual size dimorphism (SSD), rather than opposes SSD as is the conventional view. If both natural selection and sexual selection favour large adult males, then limits to male size must be imposed before males become adults.

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 score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations72
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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