MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020254034 · doi:10.1111/ele.12222

The ecology of sexual conflict: ecologically dependent parallel evolution of male harm and female resistance in<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>

2013· article· en· W2020254034 on OpenAlexaff
Devin Arbuthnott, Emily M. Dutton, Aneil F. Agrawal, Howard D. Rundle

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual conflictBiologyEcologySexual selectionEvolutionary ecologyExperimental evolutionPopulationAdaptation (eye)Resistance (ecology)Ecological speciationDivergence (linguistics)Natural selectionEvolutionary biologyDemographyGenetic variationGeneticsGene flow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of sexual conflict in nature, along with the potentially stochastic nature of the resulting coevolutionary trajectories, makes it an important driver of phenotypic divergence and speciation that can operate even in the absence of environmental differences. The majority of empirical work investigating sexual conflict's role in population divergence/speciation has therefore been done in uniform environments and any role of ecology has largely been ignored. However, theory suggests that natural selection can constrain phenotypes influenced by sexual conflict. We use replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster adapted to alternative environments to test how ecology influences the evolution of male effects on female longevity. The extent to which males reduce female longevity, as well as female resistance to such harm, both evolved in association with adaptation to the different environments. Our results demonstrate that ecology plays a central role in shaping patterns of population divergence in traits under sexual conflict.

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)0.001
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations84
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207