Data from: Weak habitat isolation in a threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus spp.) species pair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive isolation is central to the study of speciation. Multiple isolating barriers may prevent species from hybridizing, although their individual strength and the interactions between them are rarely measured. We quantified habitat isolation in a recently diverged threespine stickleback species pair (Gasterosteus aculeatus complex) and controlled for any such interactions. Using enclosures in an outdoor pond, we confirm that males of the two species strongly prefer different nesting habitats: limnetic males build nests in open habitats, whereas benthic males nest under vegetation. However, forcing males to nest in their nonpreferred habitat did not reduce the probability of spawning by females. As a result, habitat isolation between the species is estimated to be weak. We compared the strength of habitat isolation estimated in the present study with estimates of other behavioural barriers using previously published data. We discovered that, although total mating isolation between the species is strong, the contributions of differences in body size and male nuptial colour are similarly individually weak. Instead, interactions with other, undetermined species-specific traits were responsible for most of the isolation resulting from differences in body size and, in benthics, colour. This is one of the first attempts to estimate individual isolating barriers at the same time as controlling for interactions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.017 |
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".