MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INDIVIDUAL PHENOTYPE, KINSHIP, AND THE OCCURRENCE OF INBREEDING IN SONG SPARROWS

2008· article· en· W2143193511 on OpenAlexafffund
Jane M. Reid, Peter Arcese, Lukas F. Keller

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungKillam TrustsJesus College, University of CambridgeRoyal SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInbreedingBiologyInbreeding depressionInbreeding avoidanceOffspringPopulationOutbreeding depressionKinshipEvolutionary biologyPopulation fragmentationGeneticsZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inbreeding load, a key parameter in evolutionary ecology, is frequently estimated by regressing fitness (or related traits) on inbreeding coefficient across population members. This approach assumes that inbreeding occurs randomly with respect to an individual's intrinsic ability to produce fit offspring; estimated loads might otherwise be biased by covariation between inbreeding and individual quality. This assumption, however, is rarely validated. We tested whether, in free-living song sparrows Melospiza melodia, an individual's observed kinship with its social mate (and hence the degree of inbreeding in which an individual participated) was correlated with specific phenotypic traits that are likely to indicate individual quality. Males (and to some extent females) that hatched earlier within their cohort, had shorter tarsi, bred earlier during their first year, or survived fewer years paired with more closely related mates and therefore produced relatively inbred offspring. These correlations arose because males with specific phenotypes were more closely related to the female population (and therefore more likely to pair with closer relatives under random pairing), and because males with specific phenotypes paired with closer relatives than expected. Such correlations could bias estimated inbreeding loads, and should be considered in quantitative genetic analyses of phenotypic variance in populations in which inbreeding occurs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations19
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207