MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115025995 · doi:10.1086/345785

Timing Games in the Reproductive Phenology of Female Pacific Salmon (<i>Oncorhynchus</i>spp.)

2003· article· en· W2115025995 on OpenAlexaff
Yolanda E. Morbey, Ronald C. Ydenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersGarfield Weston Foundation
KeywordsOncorhynchusSemelparity and iteroparityLongevitySpawn (biology)BiologyPhenologyNest (protein structural motif)EcologyReproductive successPopulationReproductionDemographyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use a game-theoretic framework to investigate the reproductive phenology of female kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka). As in the other semelparous species of Pacific salmon, females construct nests in gravel, spawn with males, bury their fertilized eggs, and defend their nest sites until they die several days later. Later-breeding females may reuse previous nest sites, and their digging behavior is thought to subject previously buried eggs to mortality. Using game-theoretic models, we show that females can reduce this risk by allocating resources to longevity (the period between arrival and death) as opposed to eggs. Waiting before territory settlement is also expected if it allows females to conserve energy and delay senescence. The models demonstrate how these costs and benefits interact to select for a seasonal decline in longevity, a well-known phenomenon in the salmonid literature, and a seasonal decline in wait duration. Both of these predictions were supported in a field study of kokanee. Female state of reproductive maturity was the most important proximate factor causing variation in longevity and wait duration. With more than 30% of territories being reused, dig-up is likely an important selective force in this population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations43
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207