MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158001361 · doi:10.1139/f01-077

Niche breadth in clonal and sexual fish (<i>Poeciliopsis</i>): a test of the frozen niche variation model

2001· article· en· W2158001361 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melissa Gray, Stephen C. Weeks

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologySexual reproductionAsexual reproductionPopulationSympatric speciationNicheAsexualityEcologyZoologyEvolutionary biologyHuman sexualityDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution and subsequent maintenance of sex has been debated for many years, and there are numerous aspects that remain poorly understood. When comparing sexual with asexual reproduction, there are many more apparent benefits to being asexual than sexual. The frozen niche variation (FNV) model describes how asexual clones can arise from a sexual population and how the two reproductive types can coexist. Herein we compared three sympatric populations of sexual and asexual fish (one sexual population, Poeciliopsis monacha, and two clonal populations, P. 2-monacha-lucida) to test the assumption of the FNV model that sexual populations have a broader dietary niche (as measured by gut contents analysis) than clonal populations. Individual sexual fish had similar dietary breadth when compared with clonal individuals. However, dietary breadth for sexual populations as a whole was broader than for either clonal population, indicating differences in between-individual dietary choice. Our results support the primary assumption of the FNV model and thereby provide a possible explanation for the maintenance of sexual reproduction in this clonal–sexual complex.

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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations23
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207