Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex ratios that deviate from 1:1 have been observed in response to a number of stimuli.In this review we will discuss sex ratio biasing, and the evolutionary and molecular mechanisms thought to underlie this phenomena in mammals.The role of embryo quality will be discussed in relation to sex ratio modulation and epigenetic programing of the embryo.Sex ratio skewing has been studied in many species and several factors have been proposed as influencing secondary sex ratios (body condition, maternal dominance, nutrition and developmental asynchrony).In swine, maternal nutrition has repeatedly been shown to influence offspring sex ratios, while maternal dominance and body condition exhibit less consistent evidence supporting their influence.Based on current evidence, we hypothesize that sex ratio biasing is the result of sexual dimorphisms that result in sex specific differences in embryo quality, and these differences lead to sex specific embryonic loss.The mechanisms through which sex specific loss occurs are not fully understood, however sexual dimorphisms in metabolism, gene expression and epigenetic mechanisms during early embryo development suggest that sex ratio modulation might be mediated through these mechanisms.We hypothesize that there are a number of mechanisms for skewing sex ratios in mammals, and that specific mechanisms are elicited in response to specific stimuli.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".