MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094427726 · doi:10.1111/eth.13098

Environmental effects on the covariation among pace‐of‐life traits

2020· article· en· W3094427726 on OpenAlexaff
Anni Hämäläinen, Anja Guenther, Samantha C. Patrick, Wiebke Schuett

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLife history theoryEnvironmental changeBiologyEcologyPaceVariation (astronomy)PopulationHeritabilityAdaptation (eye)Evolutionary biologyPsychologyLife historyDemographyClimate changeGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pace‐of‐life syndromes (POLSs) are suites of life‐history, physiological and behavioural traits that arise due to trade‐offs between allocation to current and future reproduction. Traits generally show covariation that can arise from genetic and environmental influences on phenotypes and constrain the independent evolution of traits, resulting in fitness consequences and impacts on population dynamics. The notion that correlations among traits may vary among populations along environmental gradients suggests an important role for the environment in shaping and maintaining POLSs. However, no synthesis has been attempted of the myriad ways in which environmental factors should influence POLSs. Here, we formulate a series of hypotheses targeting the critical interfaces of the environment and life‐history ‐ behaviour associations across different organisms. We discuss the hypotheses in light of findings from a systematic review of studies that measured changes in the association between behaviour and life‐history traits as a function of environmental conditions. The review revealed that POLSs are often shaped by environmental variation, where harshness of the environment in early life has the most consistent effects on POLS. However, only partial or no effects of environmental variation were found in a number of studies, which may result from the highly variable study systems, traits and environments studied. We highlight promising directions arising from the available studies and identify knowledge gaps that, if unaddressed, will impede progress in the field.

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 score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations44
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207