A test of the genetic compatibility hypothesis with tree swallows,<i>Tachycineta bicolor</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genetic compatibility hypothesis proposes that females should mate with genetically dissimilar males whose alleles best complement their own, resulting in greater offspring heterozygosity. It predicts that genetic similarity between social pairs will be positively related to the proportion of extra-pair young within broods and negatively related to hatching success. We tested these two predictions in tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808)) pairs (n = 72). Tree swallows have one of the highest rates of extra-pair paternity among socially monogamous passerines. Contrary to expectation, genetic similarity of a social pair, as measured by the band-sharing coefficient (estimated from multilocus DNA fingerprints), tended to be negatively related to the proportion of extra-pair young within broods, but failed to predict hatching success. When including only the subset of nests for which we had complete genotyping data (n = 37), we again found a significant negative relationship between genetic similarity and the proportion of extra-pair young within broods. Genetic similarity did not differ significantly between nests with and without extra-pair young, nor did it differ between nests with total versus partial hatching success. Overall, our data do not support the genetic compatibility hypothesis in tree swallows, and in fact show some evidence against it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".