A study of mate choice in mice with experimental <i>Taenia crassiceps</i> cysticercosis: can males choose?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The detection and avoidance of infected males has been proposed as a component of female mate choice. However, male mate choice and sexual behaviour in the face of infected females have been rarely investigated. Here, we assessed the exact role displayed by each protagonist in mate choice during experimental Taenia crassiceps (Zeder, 1800) Rudolphi, 1810 cysticercosis. Mate choice was studied at two levels: (1) based on animal odour cues, using a two-choice test and (2) during dyadic interactions, using sexual behaviour and courtship analysis, but also ultrasonic vocalization recordings. Our results showed that female BALB/c mice (Mus musculus L., 1758) spent more time investigating odours in the two-choice test than males, but they were also able to repel infected males during dyadic interactions. Males did not display a clear mating choice with female odours, but during dyadic sexual interactions, they showed a significant aggressiveness towards infected females. Males were able to refrain from copulating with infected females. As shown by a number of studies on female mice, males were able to detect, select, and avoid infected females, and thus express a real mate choice. These observations provided an additional support to the sperm/ejaculate cost and male mate-choice 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".