Quantifying inbreeding avoidance through extra‐pair reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extra-pair reproduction is widely hypothesized to allow females to avoid inbreeding with related socially paired males. Consequently, numerous field studies have tested the key predictions that extra-pair offspring are less inbred than females' alternative within-pair offspring, and that the probability of extra-pair reproduction increases with a female's relatedness to her socially paired male. However, such studies rarely measure inbreeding or relatedness sufficiently precisely to detect subtle effects, or consider biases stemming from failure to observe inbred offspring that die during early development. Analyses of multigenerational song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) pedigree data showed that most females had opportunity to increase or decrease the coefficient of inbreeding of their offspring through extra-pair reproduction with neighboring males. In practice, observed extra-pair offspring had lower inbreeding coefficients than females' within-pair offspring on average, while the probability of extra-pair reproduction increased substantially with the coefficient of kinship between a female and her socially paired male. However, simulations showed that such effects could simply reflect bias stemming from inbreeding depression in early offspring survival. The null hypothesis that extra-pair reproduction is random with respect to kinship therefore cannot be definitively rejected in song sparrows, and existing general evidence that females avoid inbreeding through extra-pair reproduction requires reevaluation given such biases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".