STRONGER CONVEX (STABILIZING) SELECTION ON HOMOLOGOUS SEXUAL DISPLAY TRAITS IN FEMALES THAN IN MALES: A MULTIPOPULATION COMPARISON IN DROSOPHILA SERRATA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutual mate choice for homologous sexual display traits has been demonstrated in several recent studies yet little attention has been given to quantitative comparison of the strength and form of mate preferences between the sexes. Such comparisons may provide important insight into the evolution of mate choice for honest signals. In particular, because females generally provide the majority of resources for initial offspring development, female displays may trade-off with fecundity, causing preference evolution to differ between the sexes. Recent theory suggests that adaptive male preferences for honest displays in females are possible under certain conditions and may result in preferences that are convex (i.e., stabilizing) in form. We compared sexual selection on a suite of contact pheromones arising from mutual mate choice using nine separate geographic populations of Drosophila serrata. We show that the convex selection is stronger on females than on males overall in these populations, and that convex selection is the predominate form of nonlinear selection on females but not 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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".