MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169304887 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2011.0977

Susceptibility of the male fitness phenotype to spontaneous mutation

2011· article· en· W2169304887 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin A. Mallet, Christopher M. Kimber, Adam K. Chippindale

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPleiotropyReproductive successGeneticsMatingSexual selectionJuvenilePhenotypeDrosophila melanogasterReproductionEvolutionary biologyMutation rateSpermGeneZoologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adult reproductive success can account for a large fraction of male fitness, however, we know relatively little about the susceptibility of reproductive traits to mutation-accumulation (MA). Estimates of the mutational rate of decline for adult fitness and its components are controversial in Drosophila melanogaster, and post-copulatory performance has not been examined. We therefore separately measured the consequences of MA for total male reproductive success and its major pre-copulatory and post-copulatory components: mating success and sperm competitive success. We also measured juvenile viability, an important fitness component that has been well studied in MA experiments. MA had strongly deleterious effects on both male viability and adult fitness, but the latter declined at a much greater rate. Mutational pressure on total fitness is thus much greater than would be predicted by viability alone. We also noted a significant and positive correlation between all adult traits and viability in the MA lines, suggesting pleiotropy of mutational effect as required by 'good genes' models of sexual selection.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207