Genetic independence of female signal form and male receiver design in the almond moth, <i>Cadra cautella</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efficient signalling requires coordination of signal form and receiver design. To maintain signal function, parallel changes in signaller and receiver traits are required. Genetic correlation and co-evolution among signal and response traits have been proposed to preserve signal function (i.e. coordination) during the evolution of mate recognition systems. Empirical studies have provided support for both mechanisms; however, there is debate regarding the interpretation of some of these studies. Tests for a genetic correlation typically hybridize divergent signalling systems and look at hybrid signal form and receiver design, or impose artificial selection on signal form and look for an indirect response to selection in receiver design. Some of the hybridization studies did not achieve reassortment of genes from the parental types, whereas some of the artificial selection studies incorporated random mating in their designs. As a result of these limitations, the hybridization studies cannot discriminate between genetic correlation and co-evolution with primarily additive genetic effects underlying signal and response traits. Similarly, the artificial selection experiments cannot discriminate between genetic correlation because of linkage disequilibrium and co-evolution. This study examined the mating preferences of male almond moths, Cadra cautella, before and after female moths were artificially selected (using a design incorporating assortative mating) for novel pheromone blend ratios. Our results demonstrate the absence of a genetic correlation between signal and response traits in the almond moth.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".