Preferred males are not always good providers: female choice and male investment in tree crickets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female tree crickets (Oecanthus nigricornis) prefer large males but do not receive larger glandular courtship gifts from these males. This finding is puzzling from both the male and female perspectives, because females should prefer males providing more direct benefits, and because males who provide larger gifts achieve higher insemination success. We tested for differences in the quality of male secretions and found that larger males provided more proteinaceous food gifts than did rivals, which could explain why they are preferred by females. The preference in turn could cause depletion of food gift reserves in favored males, because natural remating rates are high and because even a single feeding bout negatively affects glandular stores. Most intriguingly, we showed that preferred males can adaptively decrease the size of courtship food-gifts provided (in order to conserve gifts for future mating events) when they perceive that the probability of multiple future mating opportunities is high. Thus, the elevated mating rates of preferred males (both before and after a focal mating event) could account for the small size of their courtship food-gifts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".