MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013079325 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1678

Dynamic adjustment of parental care in response to perceived paternity

2001· article· en· W2013079325 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan D. Neff, Mart R. Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternal careBroodParental investmentBiologyInvestment (military)Lepomis macrochirusDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyDemographyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>OffspringGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories of parental care evolution predict that genetic relatedness will be an important variable in the amount of care a parent provides. However, current inferences of relatedness-based parental investment from studies in humans and birds remain challenged. No study has yet demonstrated parental care adjustment in a manner uncomplicated by life-history correlates or experimental design. We now present a unique test that controls for individual life histories and demonstrates paternity-related dynamic adjustments in parental care. Brood-rearing male bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) that are cuckolded to a varying degree will either increase or decrease their parental investment in response to changing information on paternity during brood development. Specifically, as parental males detect paternity lost to cuckolders and, hence, a reduction in the value of their brood, they adaptively lower their level of parental care. Conversely, if they detect that their paternity is higher than previously assessed, they adaptively raise their level of parental care. This dynamic adjustment during brood rearing indicates the importance of genetic relatedness in parental investment decisions and provides needed empirical support for theoretical predictions.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations114
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207