MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex, isolation and fidelity: unbiased long‐distance dispersal in a terrestrial amphibian

2006· article· en· W2089901390 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Alex Smith, David M. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalBiologyEcologyJuvenileAmphibianBufoCompetition (biology)PopulationZoologyToadDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amphibians in general are considered poor dispersers and thus their dispersal curve should be dominated by short movements. Additionally, as male toads do not compete for females and sexual selection is by female choice, dispersal should be male‐biased. Furthermore, since adults are site‐loyal and polygynous, juveniles should move farther and faster than adults. We tested the hypotheses that dispersal would be limited and both sex‐ and age‐biased in a population of Fowler's toads Bufo fowleri at Lake Erie, Ontario, Canada. Based on a mark‐recapture study of 2816 toads, 1326 recaptured at least once, we found that although the toads did show high site fidelity, the dispersal curve was highly skewed with a significant “tail” where the maximum distance moved by an adult was 34 km. Dispersal was neither sex‐biased nor age‐biased despite clear theoretical predictions that dispersal should be biased towards males and juveniles. We conclude that the resource competition hypothesis of sex‐biased dispersal does not predict dispersal tendencies as readily for amphibians as for mammals and birds. Toad dispersal only appears to be juvenile‐biased because the juveniles are more abundant than the adults, not because they are the more active dispersers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations116
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207