MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2043126075 · doi:10.1139/z00-072

Does testosterone or coloration affect growth rates of adult males of the lizard <i>Psammodromus algirus</i>?

2000· article· en· W2043126075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alfredo Salvador, José P. Veiga

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirección General de Investigación Científica y Técnica
KeywordsBiologySeasonal breederTestosterone (patch)LizardReproductionPhysiological conditionEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elevation of circulating testosterone levels during the breeding season stimulates the development of breeding coloration and favors traits that maximize reproductive success, but it may have several costs. Retardation of growth by testosterone has been proposed as one of these costs to males of long-lived species. We examine the results of a field experiment on the short-term (within the breeding season) and long-term (1 year) effects of heightening levels of testosterone on the growth of males of the lacertid lizard Psammodromus algirus. Testosterone did not affect the mass gain of males during the reproductive period or between years. The between-years increase in snout-vent length in testosterone-supplemented males tended to be less than in control individuals. Within-season individual mass gain was mainly determined by body mass at emergence: the lower the body mass the higher the mass gain. Our results do not support the idea that the production of ornamental traits limits growth, as the negative correlation between degree of head coloration and mass gain disappeared when body mass was controlled for.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→