Data from: Pedigree error due to extra-pair reproduction substantially biases estimates of inbreeding depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the evolutionary dynamics of inbreeding and inbreeding depression requires unbiased estimation of inbreeding depression across diverse mating systems. However, studies estimating inbreeding depression often measure inbreeding with error, for example, based on pedigree data derived from observed parental behavior that ignore paternity error stemming from multiple mating. Such paternity error causes error in estimated coefficients of inbreeding (f) and reproductive success and could bias estimates of inbreeding depression. We used complete “apparent” pedigree data compiled from observed parental behavior and analogous “actual” pedigree data comprising genetic parentage to quantify effects of paternity error stemming from extra-pair reproduction on estimates of f, reproductive success, and inbreeding depression in free-living song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Paternity error caused widespread error in estimates of f and male reproductive success, causing inbreeding depression in male and female annual and lifetime reproductive success and juvenile male survival to be substantially underestimated. Conversely, inbreeding depression in adult male survival tended to be overestimated when paternity error was ignored. Pedigree error stemming from extra-pair reproduction therefore caused substantial and divergent bias in estimates of inbreeding depression that could bias tests of evolutionary theories regarding inbreeding and inbreeding depression and their links to variation in mating system.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.041 |
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".