MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2886101385 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2018-0005

Geographic variation in body size and sexual size dimorphism of North American Ratsnakes (<i>Pantherophis</i> spp. s.l.)

2018· article· en· W2886101385 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brett A. DeGregorio, Gabriel Blouin‐Demers, Gerardo L.F. Carfagno, J. Whitfield Gibbons, Stephen J. Mullin, Jinelle H. Sperry, John D. Willson, Kenny Wray, Patrick J. Weatherhead

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dimorphismEctothermBiologyBergmann's ruleRange (aeronautics)EcologyVariation (astronomy)AllometryZoologySexual selectionGeographic variationLatitudeDemographyGeographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because body size affects nearly all facets of an organism’s life history, ecologists have long been interested in large-scale patterns of body-size variation, as well as why those large-scale patterns often differ between sexes. We explored body-size variation across the range of the sexually dimorphic Ratsnake complex (species of the genus Pantherophis Fitzinger, 1843 s.l.; formerly Elaphe obsoleta (Say in James, 1823)) in North America. We specifically explored whether variation in body size followed latitudinal patterns or varied with climatic variables. We found that body size did not conform to a climatic or latitudinal gradient, but instead, some of the populations with the largest snakes occurred near the core of the geographic range and some with the smallest occurred near the northern, western, and southern peripheries of the range. Males averaged 14% larger than females, although the degree of sexual size dimorphism varied between populations (range: 2%–25%). There was a weak trend for male body size to change in relation to temperature, whereas female body size did not. Our results indicate that relationships between climate and an ectotherm’s body size are more complicated than linear latitudinal clines and likely differ for males and females.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→