MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2112725175 · doi:10.1139/z01-122

Potential mechanisms of phenotypic divergence in body size between Newfoundland and mainland black bear populations

2001· article· en· W2112725175 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shane P. Mahoney, John A. Virgl, Kim Mawhinney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dimorphismBiologyPredationEcologyAbiotic componentSexual selectionRange (aeronautics)MainlandCompetition (biology)Mainland ChinaPolygynyWolf spiderZoologyPopulationGeographyDemographyChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phenotypic variation in body size and degree of sexual size dimorphism of North American black bears (Ursus americanus) was quantified for populations from New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Maine, Alaska, and the island of Newfoundland. Based on a model of island biogeography developed by Case, we predicted that body size should be larger in Newfoundland bears than in mainland populations. The presence of few large predators and minimal competition between herbivore prey on Newfoundland allow an appropriate test of the model (i.e., food availability for bears may differ between populations on the mainland and in Newfoundland). In addition, sexual-selection theory predicts that the coevolution of polygyny and large size will be coupled with an increase in sexual size dimorphism. Therefore, we also predicted that among the six populations, male body mass should scale hyperallometrically with female body mass (i.e., slope > 1). Analysis of deterministic growth curves indicated that bears from Newfoundland attained greater asymptotic body size than populations on the mainland, which supports our first prediction. On average, the relative difference in asymptotic body mass between females from the island and mainland populations was 55%, while the relative difference between males was 37%. However, we found that sexual size dimorphism did not increase disproportionately with body mass among the six populations, which refuted our second prediction. We discuss a range of abiotic and biotic selection pressures possibly responsible for larger body size in Newfoundland bears. We suggest that the ability to exploit seasonally abundant and spatially dispersed dietary protein by female and male black bears on the island has been and is still a primary environmental factor selecting for large body size in Newfoundland bears. Although the relationship between sexual size dimorphism and body size is tenuous (slope [Formula: see text] 1), it does suggest that (an)other adaptive mechanism(s), opposing sexual selection for extreme male size, explain(s) a large amount of the variation in sexual size dimorphism among black bear populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations28
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→