MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Body size varies with abundance, not climate, in an amphibian population

2013· article· en· W2037121017 on OpenAlexaffabout
David M. Green, Jessica Middleton

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)Bergmann's ruleBiologyAmphibianEcologyPopulationPopulation densityPopulation sizeDemographyGeographyLatitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body size variation among animals has many possible correlates, temporal as well as geographic. Adult male body size was analysed over the course of 23 yr (1989–2011) in a population of Fowler’s toads Anaxyrus fowleri at Long Point, Ontario. We used an information theoretic approach to identify the most likely models to explain body length variation in relation to abundance, age and environmental variables, including temperature. Male toads overall averaged 53.6 ± 0.1 (SE) mm (n = 1976) but average body length from year to year varied from 50.9 ± 0.2 to 61.4 ± 1.3 mm (n = 23 yr), a difference of 18.7%. Abundance was the only variable significantly correlated with body size variation ( R ²= 0.713, p = < 0.001). A significant 10‐yr trend in increased body size ( R ²= 0.874, p = < 0.001) was coincident with a previously detected negative trend in abundance. A 0.05°C yr −1 increase in environmental temperature over the course of our study was not significantly correlated with the toads’ body size. Body size variation in these toads is likely related to density‐dependent resource availability for growth in the terrestrial stage. Temporal changes in average body size within populations in relation to density may be a significant component of phenotypic variation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207