MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231508231 · doi:10.1139/z00-086

Egg size, contents, and quality: maternal-age and -size effects on house fly eggs

2000· article· en· W4231508231 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Grant S. McIntyre, R. H. Gooding

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyAvian clutch sizeMaternal effectAnimal scienceReproductionEcologyOffspringPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Egg size is generally regarded as a good predictor of egg quality. However, in phenotypic studies it is difficult to separate the effects of egg-size variation from the effects of the underlying cause of the differences in egg size. We examined the relationships between the size, shape, hatch rate, and biochemical and energy contents of house fly (Musca domestica L.) eggs using two distinct sources of egg-size variation: maternal age and maternal size. By comparing relationships among egg parameters between manipulations we were able to distinguish some maternal effects from pure egg-size effects. Maternal age was negatively correlated with clutch size, egg volume, hatch rate, and lipid content, but was not correlated with protein, carbohydrate, or energy content. Female size did not affect hatch rate or biochemical and energy contents, but was positively correlated with clutch size and egg volume. Partial correlation analyses revealed that egg-size variation due to maternal-age effects was unrelated to hatch rate, but that egg-size variation due to maternal-size effects was weakly negatively correlated with hatch rate. The results suggest that large and small house fly eggs differ primarily in size and that within size classes there is significant variation in other egg parameters. Size is not a useful predictor of egg quality in this system.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.235 · 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.

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

Citations54
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207