MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Darwinian stickleback<i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i>: a history of evolutionary studies<sup>*</sup>

2009· article· en· W2060202173 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. J. Wootton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasterosteusBiologySticklebackThree-spined sticklebackArchipelagoEcologyAdaptive radiationZoologyEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The history of studies on the taxonomy and evolutionary biology of the three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus from the 18th century to the present is reviewed. After the publication of Darwin's Origin of the Species, four important dates, 1925, 1947, 1967 and 2001, are identified as marking major gains in the understanding of the evolution of the diversity in morphological, life-history, physiological and behavioural traits that characterizes G. aculeatus. The period 1925-1970 led to the identification of the main themes of research: status and adaptive significance of lateral-plate morphs; inter and intrapopulation trait variation in freshwater resident G. aculeatus and the adaptive significance of the variation. Between 1970 and 2001, these themes were investigated using variation observed particularly along the Pacific coast of the U.S.A. and Canada, notably in the Cook Inlet region of Alaska and the Haida Gwaii Archipelago. Studies on adaptive radiation and reproductive isolation in lacustrine, ecomorph pairs (limnetics and benthics) discovered in the Strait of Georgia region have been particularly productive. From 2001, the application of genomic studies to these problems began to open up the study of the relationships between genotype, phenotype and selective advantage to causal analysis.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations59
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207