MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IS SURVIVORSHIP A BETTER FITNESS SURROGATE THAN FECUNDITY?

2001· article· en· W4242975747 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth E. Crone

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecunditySurvivorship curveBiologyDemographyEcologyPopulationVital ratesTaxonSelection (genetic algorithm)ZoologyPopulation growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although fitness depends on both survivorship and fecundity, we tend to assume fecundity relates to fitness more directly than survivorship. In fact, several recent ecological studies suggest fitness depends more heavily on annual survivorship than annual fecundity for most taxa with lifespans longer than one year. These studies review elasticities of transition matrices for a broad range of taxa. Elasticities covary monotonically with selection gradients for demographic rates and are identical to selection gradients for traits rescaled to have mean values of zero and variance of one. For all taxa except semelparous perennial plants, adult survivorship has consistently higher elasticity than other suites of demographic rates. Fecundity only rarely has the highest elasticity. Thus, differences in yearly survival affect fitness disproportionately more than differences in yearly fecundity, even in many exponentially growing populations. This pattern reinforces the importance of interpreting the contribution of vital rates to fitness in the context of life history and population dynamics.Corresponding Editor: T. Mousseau

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.613

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations25
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207