MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2003132341 · doi:10.1139/z00-211

Maintenance of androdioecy in the freshwater clam shrimp <i>Eulimnadia texana</i>: longevity of males relative to hermaphrodites

2001· article· en· W2003132341 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naida Zucker, Brian Stafki, Stephen C. Weeks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Akron
KeywordsBiologyLongevityMatingZoologySex allocationMating systemEcologySex ratioDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clam shrimp Eulimnadia texana exhibits a rare mixed mating system known as androdioecy. In this ephemeral-pond branchiopod crustacean, males coexist with hermaphrodites, which can outcross with males or self-fertilize. We provide an estimate of the longevity of males relative to hermaphrodites (1 – σ), an important parameter of a model that was developed to explain the conditions under which this system would be stable. Under both optimal rearing conditions and various sex-ratio treatments, hermaphrodites from two study populations lived significantly longer than males. Since various aspects of mating have been found to be costly to males and females/hermaphrodites in other taxa, we explored this possibility as well. Hermaphrodites showed no differences in longevity when kept in groups provided with different mating opportunities. Males, however, lived significantly longer when mating opportunities were increased, a result contrary to what we had expected. Behavioral observations, however, suggested that male–male interactions may have been deleterious to males living in groups with little opportunity to mate. This was confirmed by an additional study in which individual males were maintained in the presence and absence of hermaphrodites. Under these conditions we still detected no longevity cost of mating for males.

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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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