MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sexual differences in response to larval food stress in two nuptial feeding orthopterans – implications for sexual selection

2004· article· en· W2112074699 on OpenAlexaff
Darryl Gwynne

Bibliographic record

VenueOikos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTettigoniidaeSpermatophoreSexual selectionBiologyMatingOrthopteraLarvaZoologySexual conflictTraitEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extent to which a trait deteriorates in response to stress can indicate its fitness importance. Food limitation is a naturally‐occurring stress in the katydid Kawanaphila nartee (Orthoptera: Tettigoniidae) and should cue larvae as to the level of sexual competition expected; hunger drives adult females to compete for copulations and thus acquire spermatophore meals. This increases sexual selection on females relative to males for increased body mass. As predicted, under experimental food‐stress larval female K. nartee showed little loss of mass whereas male mass decreased. In contrast, the sizes of body parts less critical to mating success showed similar decreases in males and females. For katydids such as Conocephalus nigropleurum , where reversals in mating roles do not occur, larval food stress should result in a greater preservation of male body mass, an important trait in male mating success. This prediction was supported; male mass decreased less than that of females.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOikosSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207