MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Male <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i> have higher mating success when adapted to their thermal environment

2006· article· en· W2057565851 on OpenAlexaff
Elie Dolgin, Michael C. Whitlock, Aneil F. Agrawal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMatingDrosophila melanogasterAdaptation (eye)Sexual selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Competition (biology)Evolutionary biologyNatural selectionExperimental evolutionAssortative matingMating preferencesEcological selectionMate choiceReproductive successDrosophila (subgenus)EcologyZoologyGeneticsPopulationDemographyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptation to new environments is a well-documented phenomenon. Individuals from populations maintained in a particular environment for multiple generations tend to be better able to survive and/or reproduce in that environment than their ancestors or other individuals adapted to alternative environments. A third major component of fitness, mating success, has not been well studied in replicated populations under selection in divergent environments. In this study, we used mating trials to compare the mating success of male Drosophila melanogaster adapted for 10 years to two different temperatures, 18 and 25 degrees C. In competition for female partners, males had significantly higher mating success at their adapted temperature compared with males adapted to a different temperature. These results are consistent with the notion that those mutations favoured by natural selection also tend to be favoured by sexual selection.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207