MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948724049 · doi:10.5061/dryad.18931zd3x

Data from: Mating tactic influences body condition loss in Rocky Mountain bighorn rams (Ovis canadensis)

2023· dataset· en· W6948724049 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsMatingPolygynySireSeasonal breederMate choiceMating systemSexual selectionReproduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In polygynous mating systems, males often employ alternative mating tactics to enhance reproductive success. In Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, the primary tactics are coursing, involving mating chases, and tending, involving mate guarding. While both tactics are energetically costly and can diminish body condition, it remains unclear whether the associated costs significantly differ and to what extent. Our study investigated the impact of mating tactics, specifically the proportion of time allocated to each, on body condition loss during the rutting season in bighorn sheep. Using a non-invasive photographic method to estimate body condition loss, we found that the proportion of time a male spent tending significantly correlated with body condition loss. In contrast, the percentage of time spent coursing did not show a significant effect. Age was associated with the choice of tactic, with younger males predominantly coursing, older males primarily tending, and some intermediate-aged males employing both tactics concurrently. Despite the higher energetic costs, our results reveal the flexibility in tactic usage and indicate that tending, while demanding, is a high-cost, high-gain strategy, as tending rams are known to sire more offspring.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.080

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207