Parallel evolution of the sexes? Effects of predation and habitat features on the size and shape of wild guppies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental gradients often lead to the parallel evolution of populations and species. To what extent do such gradients also lead to parallel evolution of the sexes? We used guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to examine the parallel and independent (sex-specific) aspects of population divergence in response to predation and habitat features. Geometric morphometrics was used to analyse size and shape variation for 1335 guppies from 27 to 31 sites sampled in each of 2 years. Body size showed strong parallel population divergence; both sexes were larger at sites with a more open canopy and with higher flow. Body shape showed a mixture of parallel and independent population divergence. The strongest and most consistent effects were (1) high-predation sites had males with smaller heads and deeper caudal peduncles, (2) open-canopy sites had females with smaller heads and more distended abdomens and (3) high-flow sites had males and females with smaller heads and deeper caudal peduncles.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it