MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783943810 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2017.1935

Direct and indirect effects of early-life environment on lifetime fitness of bighorn ewes

2018· article· en· W2783943810 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriel Pigeon, Fanie Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevityReproductive successIndirect effectDemographyDensity dependenceReproductionPath analysis (statistics)BiologyCohortPopulationEcologyMedicineGeneticsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cohort effects, when a common environment affects long-term performance, can have a major impact on population dynamics. Very few studies of wild animals have obtained the necessary data to study the mechanisms leading to cohort effects. We exploited 42 years of individual-based data on bighorn sheep to test for causal links between birth density, body mass, age at first reproduction (AFR), longevity and lifetime reproductive success (LRS) using path analysis. Specifically, we investigated whether the effect of early-life environment on lifetime fitness was the result of indirect effects through body mass or direct effects of early-life environment on fitness. Additionally, we evaluated whether the effects of early-life environment were dependant on the environment experienced during adulthood. Contrary to expectation, the effect on LRS mediated through body mass was weak compared to the effects found via a delay in AFR, reduced longevity and the direct effect of birth density. Birth density also had an important indirect effect on LRS through reduced longevity, but only when adult density was high. Our results show that the potential long-term consequences of a harsh early-life environment on fitness are likely to be underestimated if investigations are limited to body mass instead of fitness at several life stages, or if the interactions between past and present environment are ignored.

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)0.001
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 score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.820

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207