MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979180881 · doi:10.1111/jfb.14145

Sexually selected traits are larger and more variable in male than female beach‐spawning capelin, <i>Mallotus villosus</i>

2019· article· en· W2979180881 on OpenAlexafffund
Dara N. Orbach, Meghan Donovan, Craig F. Purchase

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’s Health Sciences Centre
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and LabradorCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsCapelinBiologyMallotusSexual dimorphismDorsal finZoologyEcologyAnatomyPredationDorsum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated whether morphological traits in capelin, Mallotus villosus, that appear to be sexually selected (pectoral fin, pelvic fin, anal fin, lateral ridge) were larger and more variable in males than females compared with naturally selected morphological traits (eyes, dorsal fin). Photographs were obtained of 136 capelin captured at two spawning sites and standardised measurements were taken of six morphological traits. Males had larger traits than females for a given body size and this was most pronounced in the traits thought to be sexually selected. Body size explained much of the variation in female traits but less variation in male traits, suggesting alternative selection pressures are involved. We suggest that larger male body size aids in endurance rivalry and sexually dimorphic traits help males to remain in physical contact with females while spawning on the beach.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207