MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002932362 · doi:10.1037/0735-7036.119.4.440

Female Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) mated with males that harassed them are unlikely to lay fertilized eggs.

2005· article· en· W2002932362 on OpenAlexaff
Kamini N. Persaud, Bennett G. Galef

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of comparative psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuailMatingCourtshipCoturnix japonicaJaponicaBiologyCoturnix coturnixHarassmentCoturnixZoologyPsychologyEcologySocial psychologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Results of previous studies of courtship and mating in Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) suggest that females avoid conspecific males because, while courting and mating, males engage in behaviors that are potentially injurious to females. However, prior experiments provided no direct evidence that females avoided harassing males. Here the authors show that a female quail choosing between a previous sex partner and an unfamiliar male avoids the former if he engaged in relatively many potentially injurious acts while courting and mating, (Experiments 1 and 2) and that males behaving aggressively toward mates are less likely than are gentler males to fertilize the females' eggs (Experiment 3). Male sexual harassment appears to be a tactic both aversive to female quail and relatively ineffective in fertilizing them.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations15
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of comparative psychologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207