`Little Chipmunk' Syndrome? Male Body Size and Dominance in Captive Yellow‐Pine Chipmunks (<i>Tamias amoenus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mammals, large males are often assumed to have higher mating success because they have greater success at contest competition. This relationship is often used to explain the prevalence of male‐biased sexual size dimorphism in mammals. However, in many small vertebrates, large individuals are not always dominant. Using staged dyadic encounters, we examined the relationship between male body size and social dominance in captive male yellow‐pine chipmunks (Tamias amoenus), a species with female‐biased sexual size dimorphism. The yellow‐pine chipmunk has a mating system in which males participate in mating chases and dominant males may have an advantage in acquiring matings with oestrous females. Captive male chipmunks were aggressive in only 28% of 144 paired encounters; however, several lines of evidence indicated that smaller chipmunks were dominant over large chipmunks: (1) small males were dominant in more dyads than large males; (2) within dyads, dominant males were smaller than subordinate males; and (3) small males performed more aggressive behaviour than large males. These results are not consistent with the prediction that large males are typically dominant. If large chipmunks are able to gain matings with females because of qualities other than dominance (such as the ability to successfully find and/or chase receptive females), then the costs of aggression to large chipmunks may outweigh any potential benefits. Small males, but not large males, may improve their mating success by being aggressive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".