MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heterogeneity in male horn growth and longevity in a highly sexually dimorphic ungulate

2007· article· en· W2044398899 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Bergeron, Marco Festa‐Bianchet, Achaz von Hardenberg, Bruno Bassano

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLongevityUngulateSexual dimorphismFrench hornBiologyAntlerSexual selectionDemographyNational parkZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In sexually dimorphic ungulates, sexual selection favoring rapid horn growth in males may be counterbalanced by a decrease in longevity if horns are costly to produce and maintain. Alternatively, if early horn growth varied with individual quality, it may be positively correlated with longevity. We studied Alpine ibex Capra ibex in the Gran Paradiso National Park, Italy, to test these alternatives by comparing early horn growth and longevity of 383 males that died from natural causes. After accounting for age at death, total horn length after age 5 was positively correlated with horn growth from two to four years. Individuals with the fastest horn growth as young adults also had the longest horns later in life. Annual horn growth increments between two and six years of age were independent of longevity for ibex whose age at death ranged from 8 to 16 years. Our results suggest that growing long horns does not constrain longevity. Of the variability in horn length, 22% could be explained by individual heterogeneity, suggesting persistent differences in phenotypic quality among males. Research on unhunted populations of sexually dimorphic ungulates documents how natural mortality varies according to horn or antler size, and can help reduce the impact of sport hunting on natural processes.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations60
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207