MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033540373 · doi:10.1086/597218

Inbreeding Load, Bet Hedging, and the Evolution of Sex‐Biased Dispersal

2009· article· en· W2033540373 on OpenAlexafffund
Frédéric Guillaume, Nicolas Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersWestern Canada Research Grid
KeywordsBiological dispersalInbreedingInbreeding avoidanceInbreeding depressionFecundityBiologyPhilopatryPolygynyAllee effectEcologyBallooningDemographyMatingMate choicePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Inbreeding load affects not only the average fecundity of philopatric individuals but also its variance. From bet-hedging theory, this should add further dispersal pressures to those stemming from the mere avoidance of inbreeding. Pressures on both sexes are identical under monogamy or promiscuity. Under polygyny, by contrast, the variance in reproductive output decreases with dispersal rate in females but increases in males, which should induce a female-biased dispersal. To test this prediction, we performed individual-based simulations. From our results, a female-biased dispersal indeed emerges as both polygyny and inbreeding load increase. We conclude that sex-biased dispersal may be selected for as a bet-hedging strategy.

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 score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations37
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207