MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION AND THE EVOLUTION OF REPRODUCTIVE ALLOCATION IN THE PITCHER-PLANT MOSQUITO, WYEOMYIA SMITHII

2001· article· en· W2165333094 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Armbruster, William E. Bradshaw, Kirsten Ruegg, Christina M. Holzapfel

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyFecundityLatitudeEcologyPopulationHabitatLarvaZoologyReproductive successDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured the egg size of six geographic populations of the pitcher-plant mosquito, Wyeomyia smithii, from Florida (30 degrees N) to Ontario (49 degrees N). Populations from northern latitudes produced larger eggs than populations from southern latitudes. Egg size increased with increasing latitude more rapidly when larvae were reared under low rather than high density. One southern (30 degrees N) and one northern (49 degrees N) population of W. smithii that persisted through 10 generations of selection for increased persistence under conditions of chronic thermal- and nutrient-limiting stress (conditions similar to southern rather than northern habitats) produced smaller eggs more rapidly than unselected control lines. However, there were no differences in lifetime fecundity or fertility between control and selected lines. Thus, laboratory evolution in an environment representative of extreme southern latitudes caused evolutionary changes consistent with geographic patterns of egg size. These results implicate temperature as a selective factor influencing the geographic variation of egg size in W. smithii, and demonstrate a novel trade-off in reproductive allocation between egg size and egg maturation time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations50
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207