MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989300378 · doi:10.1111/evo.13875

Social selection acts on behavior and body mass but does not contribute to the total selection differential in eastern chipmunks

2019· article· en· W2989300378 on OpenAlexafffund
Francesca Santostefano, Dany Garant, Patrick Bergeron, Pierre‐Olivier Montiglio, Denis Réale

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsBishop's UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsBiologyNatural selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Directional selectionTraitStabilizing selectionSocial evolutionGroup selectionDisruptive selectionEvolutionary biologyPopulationMicroevolutionInclusive fitnessSexual selectionEcologyDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through social interactions, phenotypes of conspecifics can affect an individual's fitness, resulting in social selection. Social selection is assumed to represent a strong and dynamic evolutionary force that can act with or in opposition to natural selection. Few studies, however, have estimated social selection and its contribution to total selection in the wild. We estimated natural and social selection gradients on exploration, docility, and body mass, and their contribution to selection differentials, in a wild eastern chipmunk population (Tamias striatus). We applied trait-based multiple regression models derived from classical phenotypic selection analyses, which allowed us to include several social partners (i.e., neighbors). We detected social selection gradients on female docility and male body mass, indicating that female with docile neighbors and males with large neighbors had lower fitness. In both sexes, social selection gradients varied with the season. However, we found no phenotypic assortment or disassortment for the studied traits. Social selection gradients, therefore, did not contribute to total selection differentials, and natural selection alone could drive phenotypic changes. Evaluating the factors that drive the evolution of the covariance between interacting phenotypes is necessary to understand the role of social selection as an evolutionary force.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations18
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207