Reproductive Uncertainty and the Relative Competitiveness of Simultaneous Hermaphroditism versus Dioecy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hermaphroditism is typically associated with a sedentary existence, whereas dioecy is associated with mobility. This pattern is reflected within flowering plants, as dioecious species commonly possess traits that promote high dispersal. We investigated these associations with three population dynamics models (an individual-based simulation and two mathematical models, one deterministic and the other stochastic) that allowed us to examine competition for space between a hermaphroditic and dioecious species from different perspectives. The competing species are identical in every way but their sexual system. Separation of the sexes increases the variances of pollen import and seed dispersal for the dioecious species. These variances propagate through subsequent reproductive processes and ultimately reduce mean recruitment as a result of nonlinear averaging (Jensen's inequality). A dioecious species could overcome this disadvantage simply by producing more gametes than hermaphrodites; however, in line with the association with mobility, selection on dioecious species should also favor traits that reduce reproductive uncertainty, such as extensive dispersal.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".