MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056377726 · doi:10.1086/522057

A Sex Allocation Theory for Vertebrates: Combining Local Resource Competition and Condition‐Dependent Allocation

2007· article· en· W2056377726 on OpenAlexafffund
Geoff Wild, Stuart A. West

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilRoyal Society
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Sex allocationResource allocationBiologyResource (disambiguation)Evolutionary biologyEcologyEconomicsMicroeconomicsComputer scienceComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tests of sex allocation theory in vertebrates are usually based on verbal arguments. However, the operation of multiple selective forces can complicate verbal arguments, possibly making them misleading. We construct an inclusive fitness model for the evolution of condition-dependent brood sex ratio adjustment in response to two leading explanations for sex ratio evolution in vertebrates: the effect of maternal quality on the fitness of male and female offspring (the Trivers-Willard hypothesis [TWH]) and local resource competition (LRC) between females. We show (1) the population sex ratio can be either unbiased or biased in either direction (toward either males or females); (2) brood sex ratio adjustment can be biased in either direction, with high-quality females biasing reproductive investment toward production of sons (as predicted by the TWH) or production of daughters (opposite to predictions of the TWH); and (3) selection can favor gradual sex ratio adjustment, with both sons and daughters being produced by both high- and low-quality mothers. Despite these complications, clear a priori predictions can be made for how the population sex ratio and the conditional sex ratio adjustment of broods should vary across populations or species, and within populations, across individuals of different quality.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations79
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207