Sex differences and behaviour in the pace-of-life of rodents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male and female rodents experience different selective pressures associated with reproductive costs. Thus, we may expect the expression of different Pace-of-life (POL) strategies between sexes. Further, the pace-of-life syndrome (POLS) hypothesis and anisogamy predict differences in the costs of gamete production, where variation in life history trait expression should follow a fast-slow continuum such that males and females might exist on opposite ends of the spectrum. However, males and females could express a similar POL strategy in systems where the reproductive costs are consistent between sexes or where selective pressures force a similar directionality of traits. We used standardized behavioural tests and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) concentrations to measure potential differences in POL strategies among three rodent species in Algonquin Provincial Park. We hypothesized that differences in reproductive costs between males and females would result in differences in POL traits along the fast-slow continuum. We predicted that males would express more explorative behaviours and have a higher level FGMs than female counterparts. We found little support for the POLS hypothesis between sexes. Instead, we suggest that the species observed may express a similar directionality of selection for the observed behavioural traits, where both sexes express similar relationships in POL. Thus, some male rodents may be more explorative to accommodate the increase of energetic stress associated with mate acquisition, while females may share similar trait expressions to accommodate the increased metabolic demand for the care and development of young.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".