Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual dimorphism results when the sexes differ in the degree to which trait elaboration confers a reproductive or survival advantage. Trait size dimorphism is often reported in terms of allometry, typically using adults of varying ages (static allometry). A static allometric analysis of tail length in breeding tiger salamanders ( Ambystoma tigrinum (Green, 1825)) revealed that tail length is a positive allometric trait in both sexes, as well as a sexually dimorphic trait. Although static analyses are common in the literature, ontogenetic allometric analyses in which individuals are measured through time are preferred because they provide insight into the heterochronic process underlying trait divergence between the sexes and which sex is diverging from its earlier growth trajectory. I reared 91 individuals from the zygote stage to sexual maturity. An ontogenetic analysis revealed that tail length was isometric in larvae and young metamorphs of both sexes; however, tail length became allometric in males but not in females prior to sexual maturation. I also present static allometric analyses and show how conclusions differ from those of ontogenetic analyses. Lastly, I discuss how sex differences in selection gradients, as well as resource allocation costs, might influence differences between the sexes in the duration and rate of trait growth.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".