MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2741832381 · doi:10.1111/evo.13319

Digest: Does intralocus sexual conflict affect cricket nutrition?*

2017· letter· en· W2741832381 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Isaacson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAffect (linguistics)CricketEvolutionary biologyZoologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ratio of macronutrients in an organism's diet can affect numerous phenotypes, including two of the most evolutionarily important traits: lifespan and reproductive output. Many organisms have been found to extend their lifespan through dietary restriction, specifically through caloric restriction. However, this increase in lifespan is accompanied by decreased reproductive output, because nutrient shortages cause a reallocation of resources from reproductive output to somatic maintenance (Shanley and Kirkwood 2000). However, research utilizing the geometric framework of nutrition has found that this effect is caused by a restriction of specific macronutrients rather than caloric restriction alone (Simpson and Raubenheimer 2012). Lifespan and reproductive effort require different macronutrient compositions in an organism's diet to be optimally expressed, so tradeoffs necessarily occur. Furthermore, males and females often require diets with very different macronutrient compositions to maximize reproductive effort. For example, male black field crickets (Teleogyllus commodus) maximize calling effort when fed diets high in carbohydrates, whereas females maximize egg production when fed diets high in protein. Despite these differences, the dietary preferences of male and female crickets are very similar (Maklakov et al. 2008).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0150.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207