MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075636246 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3588

Best squirrels trade a long life for an early reproduction

2006· article· en· W2075636246 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Descamps, Stan Boutin, Dominique Berteaux, Jean‐Michel Gaillard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReproductionBiologyPopulationDemographyTrade-offMaturity (psychological)LongevityLife history theoryReproductive successLife historyEcologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age at primiparity plays a crucial role in population dynamics and life-history evolution. Long-term data on female North American red squirrels were analysed to study the fitness consequences of delaying first reproduction. Early breeders were born earlier, had a higher breeding success and achieved a higher lifetime reproductive success than females who delayed their first reproduction, which suggests a higher quality of early breeders. However, early breeders had similar mass when tagged, and similar number of food caches available at one year of age as late breeders. Nevertheless, we found evidence of survival costs of early primiparity. Early breeders had a lower survival between one and two years of age than late breeders and a lower lifespan. Our study points out that two reproductive tactics co-occurred in this population: a tactic based on early maturity at the cost of a lower survival versus a tactic based on delayed maturity and long lifespan. High quality individuals express the most profitable tactic by breeding early whereas low quality individuals do the best of a bad job by delaying their first reproduction.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

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 studies0.0010.002
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations93
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207