Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why are females so choosy when it comes to mating? This question has puzzled and marveled evolutionary and behavioral ecologists for decades. In mating systems in which males provide direct benefits to the female or her offspring, such as food or shelter, the answer seems straightforward--females should prefer to mate with males that are able to provide more resources. The answer is less clear in other mating systems in which males provide no resources (other than sperm) to females. Theoretical models that account for the evolution of mate choice in such nonresource-based mating systems require that females obtain a genetic benefit through increased offspring fitness from their choice. Empirical studies of nonresource-based mating systems that are characterized by strong female choice for males with elaborate sexual traits (like the large tail of peacocks) suggest that additive genetic benefits can explain only a small percentage of the variation in fitness. Other research on genetic benefits has examined nonadditive effects as another source of genetic variation in fitness and a potential benefit to female mate choice. In this paper, we review the sexual selection literature on genetic quality to address five objectives. First, we attempt to provide an integrated framework for discussing genetic quality. We propose that the term 'good gene' be used exclusively to refer to additive genetic variation in fitness, 'compatible gene' be used to refer to nonadditive genetic variation in fitness, and 'genetic quality' be defined as the sum of the two effects. Second, we review empirical approaches used to calculate the effect size of genetic quality and discuss these approaches in the context of measuring benefits from good genes, compatible genes and both types of genes. Third, we discuss biological mechanisms for acquiring and promoting offspring genetic quality and categorize these into three stages during breeding: (i) precopulatory (mate choice); (ii) postcopulatory, prefertilization (sperm utilization); and (iii) postcopulatory, postfertilization (differential investment). Fourth, we present a verbal model of the effect of good genes sexual selection and compatible genes sexual selection on population genetic variation in fitness, and discuss the potential trade-offs that might exist between mate choice for good genes and mate choice for compatible genes. Fifth, we discuss some future directions for research on genetic quality and sexual selection.
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.
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 it