MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037163895 · doi:10.1139/z01-152

Inbreeding in the field: an experiment on root vole populations

2001· article· en· W2037163895 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gry Gundersen, Jon Aars, Harry P. Andreassen, Rolf A. Ims

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInbreedingInbreeding depressionBiologyMicrotusVoleInbreeding avoidancePopulationEcologyZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a field experiment with replicate populations of a particular geographic race of root voles (Microtus oeconomus) with different degrees of inbreeding to test whether inbreeding effects were expressed in demographic parameters. This geographic race had been shown to exhibit reduced reproductive rates in the laboratory resulting from inbreeding depression. There were no effects of inbreeding on population growth rate or any demographic parameter. Inbred animals grew less than outbred animals early in the summer, but this had no demographic consequences. Our study is one of the few to compare the performance of the same species in the laboratory and in the field with respect to the extent of inbreeding depression. More such comparisons will be needed to determine whether inbreeding is detrimental more often in the field than in the laboratory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207