Effect of nutritional stress and sex on melanotic encapsulation rate in the sexually size dimorphic Cook Strait giant weta (<i>Deinacrida</i><i> rugosa</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nutritional condition and sex are known to influence efficacy and investment in immune function. A poor diet is costly to immune function because it limits the resources (e.g., protein) available to effector systems (e.g., melanotic encapsulation), whereas males and females are expected to differ in how they allocate resources to fitness-related traits. Males are expected to invest less in immunity, and more in mating, than females, but this pattern could be reversed if fitness is more condition-dependent in males than in females. I tested the effects of nutritional condition and sex on melanotic encapsulation rate in the Cook Strait giant weta (Deinacrida rugosa Buller, 1871), an orthopteran insect exhibiting strong female-biased sexual size dimorphism that is, at least in part, the result of strong sexual selection for small male size. I found that male D. rugosa have a stronger encapsulation response than females, while nutritional condition has only a small positive effect on this particular effector system in both sexes. Whether the observed sex difference in encapsulation ability is due to a physiological constraint in females or whether males allocate more resources to this effector system because their fitness is more condition-dependent than female’s remains to be determined.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".