Recruitment sex ratios in gray-tailed voles (<i>Microtus canicaudus</i>) in response to density, sex ratio, and season
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested predictions associated with three widely used hypotheses for facultative sex-ratio adjustment of vertebrates using eight enclosed populations of gray-tailed voles, Microtus canicaudus. These were (i) the population sex ratio hypothesis, which predicts that recruitment sex ratios should oppose adult sex-ratio skews, (ii) the local resource competition hypothesis, which predicts female-biased recruitment at low adult population density and male-biased recruitment at high population density, and (iii) the first cohort advantage hypothesis, which predicts that recruitment sex ratios should be female biased in the spring and male biased in the autumn. We monitored naturally increasing population densities with approximately equal adult sex ratios through the spring and summer and manipulated adult sex ratios in the autumn and measured subsequent sex ratios of recruits. We did not observe any significant sex-ratio adjustment in response to adult sex ratio or high population density; we did detect an influence of time within the breeding season, with more female offspring observed in the spring and more male offspring observed in the autumn. Significant seasonal increases in recruitment sex ratios indicate the capacity of female gray-tailed voles to manipulate their offspring sex ratios and suggest seasonal variation in the relative reproductive value of male and female offspring to be a regular phenomenon.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".