Body size, age and paternity in common brushtail possums (<i>Trichosurus vulpecula</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual selection should produce sexual size dimorphism in species where larger members of one sex obtain disproportionately more matings. Recent theory suggests that the degree of sexual size dimorphism depends on physical and temporal constraints involving the operational sex ratio, the potential reproductive rate and the trade-off between current reproductive effort and residual reproductive value. As part of a large-scale experiment on dispersal, we investigated the mating system of common brushtail possums inhabiting old-growth Eucalyptus forest in Australia. Paternity was assigned to 20 of 28 pouch-young (maternity known) genotyped at six microsatellite loci. Male mating success was strongly related to body size and age; male body weight and age being highly correlated. Despite disproportionate mating success favouring larger males, sexual size dimorphism was only apparent among older animals. Trapping and telemetry indicated that the operational sex ratio was effectively 1 : 1 and the potential reproductive rate of males was at most four times that of females. Being larger appeared to entail significant survival costs because males 'died-off' at the age at which sexual size dimorphism became apparent (8-9 years). Male and female home ranges were the same size and males appeared to be as sedentary as females. Moreover, longevity appears to be only slightly less important to male reproductive success than it is to females. It is suggested that a sedentary lifestyle and longevity are the key elements constraining selection for greater sexual size dimorphism in this 'model' medium-sized Australian marsupial herbivore.
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".