Senescence and age‐related reproduction of female Columbian ground squirrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Three hypotheses have been proposed to explain age‐structured patterns of reproductive investment and somatic investment: residual reproductive value, senescence and evolutionary restraint. We evaluated these hypotheses for female Columbian ground squirrels (Spermophilus columbianus) by examining age‐related patterns of somatic and reproductive investment. Females were designated as successful (those that weaned litters) and unsuccessful (those that did not wean litters). Somatic investment varied among both successful and unsuccessful females of different ages, with yearlings having the highest investment. Considering all females, reproductive investment varied among age classes with yearlings and the oldest (6–9‐year‐olds) having the lowest investments. However, when only successful females were considered, reproductive investment was lowest in the yearlings and not significantly different among older females. The highest proportion of successful females occurred in the middle adult age classes, while yearlings and the oldest females displayed the lowest proportion of successful females. During the breeding season, somatic investments of successful and unsuccessful females differed significantly only in the yearling age class, with unsuccessful females having the highest investment. Evolutionary restraint or constraint explained patterns of reproduction in the yearling age class, where both reproductive investment and proportion of reproductive females were low. There was evidence for senescence of reproduction by some of the oldest 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".