The effect of temperature and wing morphology on quantitative genetic variation in the cricket <i>Gryllus firmus</i>, with an appendix examining the statistical properties of the Jackknife–manova method of matrix comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the effect of temperature and wing morphology on the quantitative genetic variances and covariances of five size-related traits in the sand cricket, Gryllus firmus. Micropterous and macropterous crickets were reared in the laboratory at 24, 28 and 32 degrees C. Quantitative genetic parameters were estimated using a nested full-sib family design, and (co)variance matrices were compared using the T method, Flury hierarchy and Jackknife-manova method. The results revealed that the mean phenotypic value of each trait varied significantly among temperatures and wing morphs, but temperature reaction norms were not similar across all traits. Micropterous individuals were always smaller than macropterous individuals while expressing more phenotypic variation, a finding discussed in terms of canalization and life-history trade-offs. We observed little variation between the matrices of among-family (co)variation corresponding to each combination of temperature and wing morphology, with only one matrix of six differing in structure from the others. The implications of this result are discussed with respect to the prediction of evolutionary trajectories.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".