MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6892181508 · doi:10.5061/dryad.d51c5b03v

Morphological data quantifying sexual dimorphism of Anolis carolinensis in presence and absence of congener

2021· dataset· en· W6892181508 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnolisSexual dimorphismInterspecific competitionNiche differentiationNatural selectionNicheCompetition (biology)Habitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Natural selection favors sexual dimorphism that reduces resource competition between the sexes of the same species. However, niche partitioning among interspecific competitors should counter such divergence, as partitioning the niche results in smaller total niche widths for each individual species, leaving less room for the sexes to diverge. A straightforward (and long-standing) hypothesis emerges: species in competitor-rich ecological communities should show less sexual dimorphism than species in competitor-poor ecological communities. Here, we test this prediction using a well-documented natural experiment generated by the recent arrival of Anolis sagrei to a set of small islands in Mosquito Lagoon, Florida, containing Anolis carolinensis. Despite known interspecific habitat partitioning and rapid evolution in habitat-use traits by A. carolinensis in this system, sexual dimorphism between male and female A. carolinensis was not reduced as predicted on two-species islands relative to islands with only A. carolinensis. This is consistent with a small but growing body of empirical tests of the dimorphism-richness hypothesis that have been ambiguous in their support at best. A rethinking of the validity of this intuitive hypothesis is needed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.022

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 head0.251
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→