Life history of tundra-dwelling wolf spiders (Araneae: Lycosidae) from the Yukon Territory, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied populations of three tundra-dwelling wolf spider (Lycosidae) species to determine reproductive trait relationships and developmental timing in the Arctic. We collected 451 Pardosa lapponica (Thorell, 1872), 176 Pardosa sodalis Holm, 1970, and 117 Pardosa moesta Banks, 1892 during summer 2008. We used log-likelihood ratio tests and multiple linear regressions to determine the best predictors of fecundity and relative reproductive effort. Female body size best explained the variation in fecundity and body condition was the best predictor for relative reproductive effort. We tested for a trade-off between the allocation of resources to individual eggs and the number of eggs produced (fecundity) within each species using linear regression. There was variation in detectable egg size and number trade-offs among sites and these may be related to local variation in resource allocation linked to density-related biotic or abiotic factors. These findings contribute to knowledge about the fitness of arctic wolf spiders in the region of study and are particularly relevant in light of the effects that climate changes are predicted to have on the arctic fauna.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".