MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1967301116 · doi:10.1242/jeb.049643

FEMALE FINCHES BENEFIT FROM CHEATING

2011· article· en· W1967301116 on OpenAlexaff
Viviana Cadena

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCheatingFinchBiologyPromiscuityMate choiceZoologyDemographyEcologyMatingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gouldian Finches are beautiful colourful birds and, although commonly described as a monogamous species, female Gouldian Finches are anything but faithful. As Sarah Pryke and her colleagues at Macquarie University in Australia observed, female Gouldian finches will cheat on their mate at the slightest opportunity. Why would they do that? It's easy to explain why males cheat; increased progeny leads to increased fitness. However, breeding is more costly for females and an understanding of the benefits of promiscuity is more elusive. A recent paper in Science by Pryke and her colleagues proposes that infidelity, together with post-copulatory sperm selection, aids a female in choosing the best candidate as the father of her chicks.Of the three morphs of Gouldian finches – red heads, black heads and yellow heads – the red and black head morphs are genetically incompatible, and – as Pryke and Simon Griffith noted in 2009 – interbreeding between the two morphs results in a 60% increase in offspring mortality. However, compatible males are not always around, and as some red head males are heterozygous and carry the black head allele, it's not always that easy for a female Gouldian finch to tell which prospective partner is the most compatible choice. Pryke and her colleagues performed a series of experiments to determine how often female Gouldian Finches engage in cheating, whether the propensity to cheat depends on the female's compatibility with her partner and the interloper, and whether post-copulatory mechanisms play a role in selecting the most compatible father for a female's offspring.The researchers used 40 Gouldian finch females bonded to either a compatible or an incompatible male. During the experiments the females were visually separated from their social mate by an opaque plastic divider that split the cage in two. Pryke and her colleagues then presented the female with a compatible or an incompatible male, giving her the opportunity to copulate with the new male. The visiting males performed courtship displays in 95% of the cases and the females were quite promiscuous in response; 77.5% of the females solicited and copulated with the new males, irrespective of their compatibility status with their mate or the interloping male. However, fertilization of the eggs was not so indiscriminate; all of the offspring were fathered by her long-term mate when he was compatible and the interloping male was incompatible, but compatible interlopers fathered more offspring when the long-term mate was incompatible. This happened despite the fact that females had only one chance to indulge in an extramarital affair, but multiple opportunities to copulate with their long-term partner.For a long time, the adaptive reason for female promiscuity has been a mystery. This new study provides insight into the evolution of female infidelity in birds. When compatible males are unavailable, or when unable to determine whether their life partner is genetically compatible or not, Gouldian finch females are faced with a conundrum. And how do they circumvent these problems? Well...they cheat... and then, they select the most compatible sperm and fertilize their eggs with it to give their chicks the best father they can get.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→