MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4313355210 · doi:10.1101/2022.12.16.520737

Population variation in lipid depletion during parental care in male threespine sticklebacks ( <i>Gasterosteus aculeatus</i> )

2022· preprint· en· W4313355210 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasterosteusSticklebackPopulationLittoral zoneBenthic zoneLimnetic zoneBiologyEcologyPaternal careForagingTrade-offZoologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>DemographyOffspring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract I examined changes in stored lipid over the parental care interval in several populations of threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ). Males from the limnetic populations and the marine population decreased in stored lipids over the progression of the nesting interval. Of the two benthic populations, one (Hotel Lake) did not decrease stored lipids over the parental care interval, as predicted, whereas the other (Crystal Lake) showed declining stored lipids over the parental care interval. Though food resources are likely high in the nesting area of Crystal Lake, the high density of conspecific cannibal groups in the littoral zone likely contributes to reduced foraging and elevated guarding/diversionary display behaviour and dependency on stored lipids to fuel those behaviours in the Crystal Lake (benthic) population. This study demonstrates the value of considering different ecological conditions on behavioural and energetic constraints among populations of threespine stickleback.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→