MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005702610 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arh151

Precopulatory choice for cues of material benefits in tree crickets

2004· article· en· W2005702610 on OpenAlexaff
Luc F. Bussière, Andrew P. Clark, Darryl Gwynne

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMate choiceProvisioningSexual selectionTree (set theory)Selection (genetic algorithm)Quality (philosophy)Contrast (vision)Evolutionary biologyEcologyMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative importance of direct and indirect benefits models of mate choice is a central question in sexual selection, but separating the two models is very difficult because high quality males often provide both better direct benefits and better genes. In tree crickets, Oecanthus nigricornis, females have the opportunity to gain both directly and indirectly from mate choice. Female tree crickets exercise premating choice for large males, but the model underlying this choice is unknown. In this study we examine the proximate cues used by female tree crickets to reject males, and show that the ability of males to provide food is a central cue. In contrast, we find no evidence that the relative size of mates is important in mate rejection. The fact that the major phenotypic cues of male quality are related to food provisioning suggests that the role of genetic benefits in shaping female preferences is limited by the extent to which food provisioning signals genetic quality.

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 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 score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207