MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404363995 · doi:10.1002/wll2.12046

Assessing predictions from optimal egg theory for an ectotherm relative to habitat duration

2024· article· en· W4404363995 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jon M. Davenport, Andrew Feltmann, LeeAnn Fishback, Blake R. Hossack

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsChurchill Northern Studies Centre
FundersAppalachian State UniversityCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionChurchill Northern Studies CentreEarthwatch Institute
KeywordsEctothermDuration (music)HabitatEcologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Optimal egg size theory predicts females must balance investment per offspring to maximize fitness based on environmental quality. In wetlands, environmental quality can be duration of water and predator presence. Ectotherms using habitats that dry or contain predators are likely under selection to optimize offspring production. We measured reproductive output of wood frogs (Rana sylvatica) in 30 wetlands in Subarctic Canada, where rapid climate changes are accelerating wetland drying. We predicted wetlands with short hydroperiods would have larger ova, smaller clutch sizes, and larger ovum‐to‐clutch‐sizes than wetlands with long hydroperiods or with fish predators. We found partial support for predictions with larger ova in habitats with short hydroperiods and no fish but no evidence of larger clutch sizes in wetlands with fish. Our study implicates changes to wetland hydroperiod as a source of plasticity affecting one aspect of reproductive effort (ovum size) in an ectotherm but not another (clutch size).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Letters→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→