Isolating the influence of growth rate on maturation patterns in the smallmouth bass (<i>Micropterus dolomieu</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examine the divergence in growth and maturation between two populations of smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu) introduced from a common source a century ago. To determine if the divergence in maturation is simply a plastic response to differences in growth rate, we use a new approach to estimate and then compare the probabilistic maturation reaction norms (PMRNs) for each population. The PMRNs for 5-year-old males are similar in the two populations, suggesting that the observed divergence in maturation is largely a plastic response to growth rate differences. For one population, we document the time course of maturation changes for the 60-year period from 1937 through 1990; while the mean length at maturation for 5-year-old males exhibits a steady downward trend (beginning at 31 cm and ending at 26 cm), their PMRNs vary over a much narrower range (2527 cm) and do not exhibit a consistent temporal trend. These observations are consistent with the hypothesis that most of the observed change in maturation since introduction is a product of phenotypic plasticity, driven by environmentally based differences in growth rate. Our study provides an instructive example of how the PMRN approach can be used to isolate the role of growth rate variation in generating life history differences.
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".