Social Dominance among Male Meadow Voles is Inversely Related to Reproductive Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intrasexual selection can occur through direct aggressive interactions between males for access to females. We tested the relationship between social dominance and male reproductive success among meadow voles, Microtus pennsylvanicus . Dominance ranks of wild‐caught males were determined using neutral arena trials, with the winner of two of three trials considered dominant. These males were then released into field enclosures and allowed to visit females housed in nestboxes for 8 wk, and males’ home range sizes were determined using weekly grid trapping. Male reproductive success was determined using molecular paternity analysis (six microsatellite primers) for all pups born during the field experiment. Males with higher dominance ranks had larger home ranges. However, male dominance rank was not predictive of the number of total visits to females’ nestboxes or the number of visits to each male's most frequently visited nestbox. Males that made more visits to nestboxes sired more litters. Males that had higher dominance ranks sired fewer litters. These results suggest that there is a reproductive disadvantage to having higher dominance rank among male meadow voles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".