MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

One tool, many uses: precopulatory sexual selection on genital morphology in<i>Aquarius remigis</i>

2005· article· en· W2008423050 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Angéline Bertin, Daphne J. Fairbairn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologySexual selectionSex organMatingSelection (genetic algorithm)ZoologyMorphology (biology)EcologyEvolutionary biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While congruent evidence indicates that sexual selection is the most likely selective force explaining the rapid divergence of male genital morphology in insects, the mechanisms involved in this process remain unclear. In particular, little attention has been paid to precopulatory sexual selection. We examine sexual selection for mating success on male genital components in six populations of Aquarius remigis, a water strider characterized by unique genital morphology. Multivariate selection analysis confirms previous findings that precopulatory sexual selection favours longer external genitalia, and provides new evidence that this selection acts independently on external genital components. In contrast, the size of the major internal genital sclerite is not correlated with mating success. Thus, precopulatory sexual selection acts strongly on the size of the external genitalia, but not on the intromittent organ itself. These results highlight the multiple functions of genital organs and the importance of both precopulatory and post-copulatory sexual selection in shaping the remarkable diversity of male genitalia in insects.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations86
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207