Bibliographic record
Abstract
For males, the reproductive advantage of joining a lek varies among leks; consequently, males should join the lek yielding the highest fitness. When males experience low reproductive opportunities at one lek, it may pay to move to another. By observing tagged male Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus L., 1758) at three different lek sites within one lake, we examined whether males moved between leks. Some movement was observed, especially between closely located leks, but fish length and spermatocrit, traits indicative of reproductive success, were unrelated to whether or not individuals moved between leks. Little to no movement was observed between more distantly separated leks, even though the costs associated with movements across the relatively short distances between these leks should be low. This suggests that individuals, rather than moving from leks where they have low reproductive success, are relatively stationary. The lek fidelity documented in the present study may be important for production of local genetic differences between Arctic charr leks. Our results suggest that males with low reproductive success may enhance their fitness by means other than dispersal, e.g., by associating with relatives to increase inclusive fitness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".