Rates of development in male and female Wood Frogs and patterns of parasitism by lung nematodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers are becoming interested in testing whether investment in growth and/or development trades off against investment in parasite defence. We tested this idea by examining relations between development of Wood Frogs (Rana sylvatica) and susceptibility to lung nematodes (Rhabdias ranae). Male and female frogs reared in outdoor mesocosms were the same length and mass at metamorphosis. However, males metamorphosed sooner than females. Lung nematodes were no more likely to penetrate male versus female metamorphs following controlled exposures, but males had higher intensities of adult female worms and the largest worms per host were, on average, of larger size in male metamorphs. Males that took longer to metamorphose carried higher numbers of worms in their lungs than males that metamorphosed early. In comparison, females that developed faster harboured more worms in their lungs than females that took longer to reach metamorphosis. Our results suggest that variation in susceptibility to lung nematodes is influenced by host sex and possibly also by sex-specific relations with developmental rate. Further, male hosts might prove to be a more important source of infective stages of worms than female hosts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".