MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583440292 · doi:10.1111/evo.12096

IDENTIFICATION OF GENETICALLY LINKED FEMALE PREFERENCE AND MALE TRAIT

2013· article· en· W1583440292 on OpenAlexafffund
Vanda T. K. McNiven, Amanda J. Moehring

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyTraitSexual selectionEvolutionary biologyGeneticsNatural selectionQuantitative trait locusGenetic architectureSelection (genetic algorithm)Genetic variationMate choiceGenetic linkageGeneMating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic variation in male traits and the female preferences for those traits allows for the evolution of sexual behavior. Trait-preference combinations are thought to improve the effectiveness of runaway sexual selection within a species, and are considered necessary for the induction of divergence between species. Novel traits, or variants of existing traits, and their associated preferences in the opposite sex are more likely to be maintained if they are genetically linked in proximity on a chromosome (the genetic coupling hypothesis), yet there is little empirical evidence that this genetic linkage occurs. Here we show for the first time that natural genetic variation at a single-linked region can induce both species-specific female choosiness and the male trait they are discriminating against. We found this effect in two separate regions of the genome, demonstrating that this linkage may be common. In contrast, female choosiness and male unattractiveness could not be alleviated by a single region. The close linkage of these loci and the strength of their effect provide an evolutionary means by which this preference-trait combination could arise and be maintained, thus enabling a more rapid route for runaway sexual selection, and providing empirical evidence supporting the genetic coupling hypothesis.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207