MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Premating Avoidance of Inbreeding Absent in Female Guppies (<i>Poecilia reticulata</i>)

2006· article· en· W2010147696 on OpenAlexaff
Å. Viken, Ian Fleming, Gunilla Rosenqvist

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNorges ForskningsrådUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsInbreeding avoidanceBiologyPoeciliaInbreedingMate choiceKin recognitionMatingPopulationBiological dispersalGuppyZoologyInbreeding depressionEcologyDemographyFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The recognition and avoidance of kin during mating can be an important means of reducing the potential for inbreeding depression in offspring. We report here that premating mechanisms to avoid inbreeding, either innate or learnt through juvenile experience, are at best weak in female guppies ( Poecilia reticulata ). Guppies are small, ovoviviparous, neo‐tropical freshwater fish, with a polygamous mating system where males actively court females and females are selective of their mates. In a series of mate‐choice experiments, naïve, virgin females of the Quare River population in Trinidad were given a choice between a brother and a non‐sib male from the same population. Initially, females were only provided olfactory cues upon which to base their choice and then subsequently both olfactory and visual cues. Despite the females displaying mate choice, we found no evidence of them discriminating between the male types in either experiment. There was thus no indication of inbreeding avoidance, suggesting that experiences after maturation or with mature males (e.g. rare male preference), dispersal and/or post‐mating mechanisms may be evolutionarily more important avoidance mechanisms.

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 score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207