Does mass change of primiparous bighorn ewes reflect reproductive effort?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive effort during a female's first breeding attempt could affect subsequent fitness, particularly in species that reproduce before completing body growth. We analyzed 26 years of data on marked bighorn (Ovis canadensis) ewes to assess how variation in first reproductive effort affected other life-history traits. We measured reproductive effort as the residual of the regression of mass of primiparous ewes in late lactation on their mass 1 year earlier. Survival of the first-born lamb to weaning reduced maternal mass gain, suggesting a trade-off between reproduction and growth. Mass gain during the year of primiparity therefore appears to reflect reproductive effort. Lower mass gain was associated with lower adult mass and longevity, two important determinants of lifetime reproductive success. Reproductive effort at first parity therefore appears to lower residual reproductive value. Over their lifetime, females with low mass gain as primiparae produced proportionately more daughters than did females with high mass gain. Reproductive effort at first reproduction was not heritable, and may affect the evolutionary potential of adult mass and longevity, two fitness-related traits that are highly heritable in the study population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".