Directional and fluctuating asymmetry in the
Bibliographic record
Abstract
literature. Evidence for DA, however, is building among insect taxa. We examined asymmetries in two wing traits within both sexes of the damselfly Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois) (Odonata: Calopterygidae) sampled from three sites in southeastern Ontario. After accounting for measurement error, we show that proximal segments within right fore and hind wings are consistently longer than those in the left in all but one sample group. Full wing lengths, however, exhibited FA rather than DA. Mean asymmetry values for both traits (segment and length) occurred in the direction of right-wingedness significantly more often than expected by chance. Patterns of asymmetry were generally consistent among the sexes and sites, although males tended to exhibit more pronounced DA. We suggest that the wings of C. maculata may undergo compensatory development, so that full lengths are more bilaterally symmetrical than their component parts. Résumé: L’asymétrie directionnelle (DA) est un phénomène beaucoup moins étudié que l’asymétrie fluctuante (FA) dans la littérature. Cependant, nous avons de plus en plus de preuves que l’asymétrie directionnelle prévaut chez les in-sectes. Nous avons étudié l’asymétrie de deux caractéristiques des ailes chez des mâles et des femelles de la Demoi-selle bistrée, Calopteryx maculata (Beauvois) (Odonata: Calopterygidae) échantillonnés à trois endroits dams le sud-est de l’Ontario. En tenant compte des erreurs de mesures, nous avons constaté que les segments proximaux des ailes anté-rieure et postérieure droites étaient toujours plus longs que dans les ailes de gauche, chez tous les groupes échantillon-
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".