MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Geographical variation in asymmetry in Gasterosteus aculeatus

2002· article· en· W2121656948 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carolyn Bergstrom, T. E. Reimchen

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGasterosteusBiologySticklebackFluctuating asymmetryJuvenileEcologyHabitatTraitNatural selectionFish <Actinopterygii>ParasitismZoologySelection (genetic algorithm)FisheryHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested whether fluctuating asymmetry (FA) in undisturbed populations is associated with several natural environmental factors and whether FA is negatively correlated with fitness in the wild. We compared the FA of multiple bony structural defences among 87 endemic populations of threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) inhabiting pristine freshwater habitats on the islands of Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada. Multi-trait FA for adults and juvenile fish varied extensively among populations, but only in adults did it correlate with geography and two habitat characteristics (pH and water colour). Mean FA among individual traits varied concordantly among populations but was not correlated within individuals. While asymmetrical fish showed slightly higher levels of parasitism as predicted, selection differentials based on age class comparisons suggested that asymmetrical fish had the same or marginally higher survival than symmetrical fish. Selection differentials of FA varied significantly among traits and may reflect variability in their functional importance and in the strength of selection on their developmental stability. The data imply that FA/fitness associations are heterogeneous and character-specific.

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)0.001
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207