Body size - realized fecundity relationship of whitemarked tussock moth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insect body size and fecundity are frequently reported to be correlated (e.g., Miller 1957; Dempster 1971; Beckwith 1976; Hough and Pimental 1978; Gilbert 1984; Carroll and Quiring 1993; Honek 1993; Spurgeon et al. 1995; Tammaru et al. 1996, 2002; Nylin and Gotthard 1998). The main body of evidence for this relationship stems from laboratory experiments where potential fecundity (or total egg production) is most often measured (Tammaru et al. 1996); very little evidence is available from field studies (Sopow and Quiring 1998). Realized fecundity (or total eggs laid) is affected by many extrinsic factors (e.g., Leather 1988; Carroll and Quiring 1993; Tammaru et al. 1996), suggesting that fecundity measures derived from laboratory experimentation may not be useful in nature where abiotic conditions may be highly variable (Carroll and Quiring 1993; Nylin and Gotthard 1998; Sopow and Quiring 1998).
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".