MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144879968 · doi:10.1017/s0952836902000122

Opportunity for selection in southern elephant seals (<i>Mirounga leonina</i>): the effect of spatial scale of analysis

2002· article· en· W2144879968 on OpenAlexaff
Filippo Galimberti, Anna Fabiani, Simona Sanvito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Scale (ratio)Spatial ecologyHomogeneousNatural selectionStabilizing selectionEcologyPopulationDirectional selectionStatisticsZoologyDemographyCartographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The opportunity for selection, I , calculated as the variance in relative fitness, sets an upper limit to the amount of adaptive change that selection may produce. Therefore, it is a potentially valuable, and frequently used, measure of the potential of action of phenotypic selection. Although many different aspects of I calculation and analysis have been explored, the effect of the spatial scale chosen for calculation received little attention, notwithstanding the growing evidence that natural populations are not homogeneous and present a hierarchical spatial structure. The effect of scale on the estimation of I was examined from data collected in two populations of southern elephant seals ( Mirounga leonina ), an easily observable and strongly polygynous species. A significant effect of spatial scale on three important aspects of I calculation and analysis was found: dependence of I on mean fitness, between population variation of I , and effect of local demography on I .

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ZoologySame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207