Effects of fighting on pairing and reproductive success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our study investigated the effects of winning, losing, or not participating in a fight on pairing and mating behaviour in a cichlid fish, the blockhead (Steatocranus casuarius). In this study, males that won a fight were significantly more successful at pairing and reproducing than either males that lost a fight or males that had not fought. Males' and females' behaviour also differed depending on males' fighting experience. Winning males spent significantly more time engaged in courtship behaviours such as quivering next to a female compared to males that lost fights or did not fight. Also, winning males more often used moderately aggressive behaviours such as tail beating when with their potential mates. Highly aggressive acts like biting were not correlated with pairing success; such acts were common in no-fight males but infrequent in both winner and loser treatments. Females with winning males were the most likely to show appeasement behaviour such as tilting when approached by the male, and females with males that had not fought were most likely to bite their males, which could have been either a response to or a result of the higher levels of biting displayed by those males.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".