MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048957227 · doi:10.1038/srep00768

When not to copy: female fruit flies use sophisticated public information to avoid mated males

2012· article· en· W2048957227 on OpenAlexaff
Adeline Loyau, Simon Blanchet, Pauline Van Laere, Jean Clobert, Étienne Danchin

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsMatingBiologyContext (archaeology)SpermOffspringDrosophila melanogasterSemenPublic informationMating preferencesMate choiceFemale sperm storageReproductive successZoologySperm competitionDemographyGeneticsPopulationPregnancyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Semen limitation (lack of semen to fertilize all of a female's eggs) imposes high fitness costs to female partners. Females should therefore avoid mating with semen-limited males. This can be achieved by using public information extracted from watching individual males' previous copulating activities. This adaptive preference should be flexible given that semen limitation is temporary. We first demonstrate that the number of offspring produced by males Drosophila melanogaster gradually decreases over successive copulations. We then show that females avoid mating with males they just watched copulating and that visual public cues are sufficient to elicit this response. Finally, after males were given the time to replenish their sperm reserves, females did not avoid the males they previously saw copulating anymore. These results suggest that female fruit flies may have evolved sophisticated behavioural processes of resistance to semen-limited males, and demonstrate unsuspected adaptive context-dependent mate choice in an invertebrate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2250.080

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations56
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207