Sexual dimorphism in the antennae of terrestrial isopods: a result of male contests or scramble competition?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Oniscidea (terrestrial crustaceans), males are known to have longer antennae than females. This sexual dimorphism may result from a variety of selection pressures. However, some species are well known for their highly aggressive males, which use their antennae as weapons. We tested the hypothesis that longer antennae in males have been selected for by means of antennal contests. Morphological analysis of the antennae and behavioral analysis of male dyads were performed in parallel on 7 species. We demonstrate significant sexual dimorphism of the antennae in 6 of the 7 species, and various forms of male aggressiveness depending on the species. Our hypothesis was rejected because we found a negative correlation between the use of the antennae in contests and the magnitude of sexual dimorphism. Furthermore, some species are sexually dimorphic but the males never compete using their antennae. We propose and argue that scramble competition to be the first to find receptive females could explain why males have longer chemoreceptive antennae.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".