MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984987608 · doi:10.7717/peerj.130

How age influences phonotaxis in virgin female Jamaican field crickets ( <i>Gryllus assimilis</i> )

2013· article· en· W1984987608 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Pacheco, Jeff W. Dawson, Michael Jutting, Susan M. Bertram

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMate choiceAttractionBiologyField cricketMatingZoologyPredationSexual attractionSexual selectionPreferenceOrthopteraDemographySexual behaviorEcologyPsychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Female mating preference can be a dominant force shaping the evolution of sexual signals. However, females rarely have consistent mating preferences throughout their lives. Preference flexibility results from complex interactions of predation risk, social and sexual experience, and age. Because residual reproductive value should theoretically decline with age, older females should not be as choosy as younger females. We explored how age influences phonotaxis towards a standard mate attraction signal using a spherical treadmill (trackball) and a no-choice experimental protocol. Female Jamaican field crickets, Gryllus assimilis, were highly variable in their phonotaxis; age explained up to 64% of this variation. Females 10 days post imaginal eclosion and older oriented toward the mate attraction signal, with 10- and 13-day females exhibiting the greatest movement in the direction of the signal. Our study suggests 10- and 13-day old females would be most responsive when quantifying the preference landscape for G. assimilis sexual signals.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score0.828

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Bench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207