MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7109712712 · doi:10.26108/4wvr-5685

Multiple paternity and male reproductive success in the Blanding's turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) in Nova Scotia

2007· article· en· W7109712712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaInbreedingPopulationRange (aeronautics)Turtle (robot)Reproductive successHatchlingMicrosatellite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nova Scotia population of Blanding's turtle is small and isolated from the main range of the species. Although there is no gene flow between the Nova Scotia population and any other populations of the species, there is no evidence of the inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity that often characterizes small populations. Multiple paternity is one method by which small populations of some species maintain genetic variation. Rates of multiple paternity as high as 70% have been estimated within the main species range of Blanding's turtle, and it has been hypothesized that this is one way that Blanding's turtle in Nova Scotia have maintained genetic variation. However, previous microsatellite assays suggest very low rates of multiple paternity in the Nova Scotia population. We have genotyped hatchlings from 21 nests and two years at three microsatellite loci. This resulted in combined genotypes at eight microsatellite loci; these were analyzed using the program GERUD 2.0 to determine the minimum number of sires for each clutch and to suggest potential parental genotypes. We find the rate of multiple paternity in Nova Scotia to be 29-33%. The low rate of multiple paternity correlates with previous data suggesting low male reproductive success. These data indicate that the danger of inbreeding and loss of genetic variation may be greater than previously expected.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207