Non‐random pairing with respect to past breeding experience in the common toad (<i>Bufo bufo</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A 20‐year study of a common toad Bufo bufo population in south Dorset, U.K. was carried out between 1980 and 1999. On average, c. 33% of all experienced males and females arriving each year did so during the first quarter of each breeding season with only 18% arriving during the last quarter. Conversely, a slightly higher proportion (27%) of all inexperienced (first‐time breeders) males and females arrived during the last quarter season than during the first quarter (22%). In 18 of the 20 years, the proportion of inexperienced females found paired with inexperienced males was significantly higher than could be expected from the proportion of inexperienced males in the pond, suggesting that selective pairing was occurring. One potential effect of pairings between inexperienced male and female toads, coupled with the sex difference in the age of attaining sexual maturity, might be a reduction in the incidence of sibling matings (inbreeding) in the common toad. This is particularly relevant in a species that is both highly philopatric and which congregates in large numbers every spring to breed in very localized areas.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".