MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Male personality, life‐history strategies and reproductive success in a promiscuous mammal

2009· article· en· W2115757626 on OpenAlexafffund
Denis Réale, Julien G. A. Martin, David W. Coltman, Jocelyn Poissant, Marco Festa‐Bianchet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsBoldnessBiologyPersonalityReproductive successLife history theoryOvis canadensisLife historyDemographyEcologyZoologyPopulationPsychologySocial psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent theoretical work suggests that personality is a component of life history, but links between personality and either age-dependent reproductive success or life-history strategy are yet to be established. Using quantitative genetic analyses on a long-term pedigree we estimated indices of boldness and docility for 105 bighorn sheep rams (Ovis canadensis), born between 1983 and 1999, and compared these indices to their reproductive history from 2 years of age until death. Docility and boldness were highly heritable and negatively genetically correlated. Docile and bold rams survived longer than indocile and shy rams. Docility and boldness had a weak negative effect on reproductive success early in life, but a strong positive effect on older rams. Our findings highlight an important role of personality on reproductive success and suggest that personality could be an important component of life-history strategy.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations236
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207