MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625055614 · doi:10.1111/eth.12619

Personality and fitness consequences of flight initiation distance and mating behavior in subdominant male reindeer (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>)

2017· article· en· W2625055614 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Strong, Robert B. Weladji, Øystein Holand, Knut H. Røed, Mauri Nieminen

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSubdominantMatingReproductive successPersonalityGenetic FitnessBiologyDemographySeasonal breederTraitZoologyPsychologySocial psychologyPopulationGeneticsBiological evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Animal personality has been studied extensively in recent years, yet multidimensionality in tendencies of risk‐related behavior, and the role of such consistency from a mating tactics perspective, is yet to be investigated. We used a semi‐domesticated herd of reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus ) to examine individual subdominant male propensity to risk mating attempts on guarded females, as well as flight initiation distance (FID), within the personality paradigm to elucidate potential fitness consequences of consistency from an adaptive perspective. Data were collected at the Kutuharju Reindeer Research Station in Kaamanen, Finland, where measures of personality were generated using field observation data based on the relative frequency of dominant male–subdominant male agonistic interactions over 4 years and subdominant males' FID measured over 1 year. Individual propensity for transient mating attempts was not significantly repeatable and did not significantly predict reproductive success or somatic cost during the mating season. Individuals varied consistently in FID, and although repeatable, FID was not related to reproductive success or somatic cost. Proximate state‐dependent or social mechanisms may be driving decision‐making with respect to mating effort, whereas consistent between‐individual differences in FID may be maintained by mechanisms unrelated to life‐history trade‐offs involving productivity.

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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207