Early and adult life environmental effects on reproductive performance in preindustrial women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early life environments can have long-lasting effects on adult reproductive performance, but disentangling the influence of early and adult life environments on fitness is challenging, especially for long-lived species. Using a detailed dataset spanning over two centuries, we studied how both early and adult life environments impacted reproductive performance in preindustrial women. Due to a wide geographic range, agricultural production was lower in northern compared to southern parishes, and health conditions were worse in urban than rural parishes. We tested whether reproductive traits and offspring survival varied between early and adult life environments by comparing women who moved between different environments during their lifetime with those who moved parishes but remained in the same environment. Our findings reveal that urban-born women had an earlier age at first reproduction and less offspring surviving to adulthood than rural-born women. Moreover, switching from urban to rural led to increased offspring survival, while switching from rural to urban had the opposite effect. Finally, women who switched from rural to urban and from South to North had their first child at an older age compared to those who stayed in the same environment type. Our study underscores the complex and interactive effects of early and adult life environments on reproductive traits, highlighting the need to consider both when studying environmental effects on reproductive outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".