Resolving the conundrum of inbreeding depression but no inbreeding avoidance: Estimating sex-specific selection on inbreeding by song sparrows (<i>Melospiza melodia</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inbreeding avoidance among interacting females and males is not always observed despite inbreeding depression in offspring fitness, creating an apparent "inbreeding paradox." This paradox could be resolved if selection against inbreeding was in fact weak, despite inbreeding depression. However, the net magnitude and direction of selection on the degree to which females and males inbreed by pairing with relatives has not been explicitly estimated. We used long-term pedigree data to estimate phenotypic selection gradients on the degree of inbreeding that female and male song sparrows (Melospiza melodia) expressed by forming socially persistent breeding pairs with relatives. Fitness was measured as the total numbers of offspring and grand offspring contributed to the population, and as corresponding expected numbers of identical-by-descent allele copies, thereby accounting for variation in offspring survival, reproduction, and relatedness associated with variation in parental inbreeding. Estimated selection gradients on the degree to which individuals paired with relatives were weakly positive in females, but negative in males that formed at least one socially persistent pairing. However, males that paired had higher mean fitness than males that remained socially unpaired. These analyses suggest that net selection against inbreeding may be weak in both sexes despite strong inbreeding depression, thereby resolving the "inbreeding paradox."
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".