MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067629724 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0318

Novel male trait prolongs survival in suicidal mating

2005· article· en· W2067629724 on OpenAlexaff
Maydianne C. B. Andrade, Lei Gu, J. A. Stoltz

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTraitMatingEvolutionary biologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male redback spiders (Latrodectus hasselti) maximize paternity if they copulate twice with their cannibalistic mate. Facilitating cannibalistic attack during their first copulation yields paternity benefits. However, females have paired sperm-storage organs inseminated during two separate copulations, so males that succumb to partial cannibalism during the first copulation lose at least 50% of their paternity to rivals. In this paper, we describe a novel male trait--an abdominal constriction that appears during courtship--that allows males to survive and mate with females for a second time, despite the substantial cannibalistic damage inflicted during the first copulation. Constricted males that were wounded to simulate early cannibalism had higher endurance, greater survivorship, longer subsequent courtship and higher mating success than wounded males that were not constricted. Constriction was not found in a non-sacrificial congener that rarely survived simulated cannibalism, and the protective effect of constriction in redbacks was specific to the type of damage inflicted by females during the first copulation. Thus, the abdominal constriction allows males to overcome the potential fitness limit imposed by their own suicidal strategy-paradoxically, by prolonging survival across two cannibalistic copulations.

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 score0.877
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207