Effects of fighting on pairing and reproductive success
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
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it