MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Interpopulation Differences in Courtship and Spawning Behavior in the Brook Stickleback (Culaea Inconstans)

2008· article· en· W2172473268 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jessica L. Ward, Deborah A. McLennan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Midland Naturalist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsSticklebackCourtshipNest (protein structural motif)GasterosteusAllopatric speciationCourtship displayBiologyThree-spined sticklebackEcologyZoologyPhoxinusMinnowFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although behavioral variability has been well documented in the threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus, very little is known about the extent of variability in the other members of the Gasterosteidae. We investigated the courtship and spawning repertoires of four allopatric populations of brook stickleback Culaea inconstans from Algonquin Park, central Ontario, Tooley Creek, southern Ontario, Two Mile Creek, New York and Sutherland Creek, Nebraska. The results indicated that the male courtship repertoire is quite conservative, with behavioral differences appearing primarily in the frequency and duration of headdown and broadside threat displays performed during courtship and the frequency and duration of male quivering bouts once females enter the nest. In addition to documenting male behavioral variability, data are presented showing that female C. inconstans spend a substantially longer duration of time in the nest than other gasterosteids, and that the length of time a female spends in the nest may be influenced by male behavior performed during egg deposition.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Midland NaturalistSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207