MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selective and genetic constraints on the evolution of body size in a stream-dwelling salmonid fish

2003· article· en· W2162970136 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alastair J. Wilson, Jeffrey A. Hutchings, Moira M. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Evolutionary biologyZoologyEcologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine constraints on evolution of larger body size in two stunted populations of brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) from a single river in Cape Race, Newfoundland, Canada, we measured viability selection acting on length-at-age traits, and estimated quantitative genetic parameters in situ (following reconstruction of pedigree information from microsatellite data). Furthermore we tested for phenotypic differentiation between the populations, and for association of high juvenile growth with early maturity that is predicted by life history theory. Within each population, selection differentials and estimates of heritabilities for length-at-age traits suggested that evolution of larger size is prevented by both selective and genetic constraints. Between the populations, phenotypic differentiation was found in length-at-age and age of maturation traits, whereas early maturation was associated with increased juvenile growth (relative to adult growth) both within and between populations. The results suggest an adaptive plastic response in age of maturation to juvenile growth rates that have a largely environmental basis of determination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207