Protandrous arrival timing to breeding areas: a review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protandry, the earlier arrival of males to breeding areas than females, is a common pattern of sex‐biased timing in many animal taxa (e.g. some insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals). The adaptive significance of protandry is not fully understood and, since the 1970s, at least seven hypotheses for protandry have been proposed. We describe each of these hypotheses and summarize what is known about each. In three of these hypotheses, the relative arrival timing of males and females has no direct fitness consequences for males or females, but selection for different timing in each sex indirectly produces protandry. In the other four hypotheses, the difference between male and female timing has fitness consequences for males or females and selection directly maintains the fitness‐maximizing degree of sex‐biased timing. The hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, and the degree of multiple mating by males and the occurrence of male territoriality seem to determine the relative importance of each hypothesis. In order to understand the adaptive significance of sex‐biased timing, future studies need to consider all the alternatives and to assess the costs and benefits to males of early arrival relative to calendar date, to other males and to females.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it