Indicators of development as sexually selected traits: the developmental stress hypothesis in context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The developmental stress hypothesis proposes that the honesty of bird song as a signal may be maintained by costs incurred during development. That is, song complexity or other features of song may be honest indicators of male quality because they reflect an individual's developmental history. Over the last decade much evidence in support of this hypothesis has accrued. Experimentally imposing stressors on songbirds early in development results in impaired development of song and the brain regions controlling song. We review the evidence in support of the developmental stress hypothesis and indicate where information is still lacking. Further, we propose that the developmental stress hypothesis may be specific example of a general process whereby indicators of developmental stability become sexually selected traits. In this light, birdsong and fluctuating asymmetry may have evolved through similar evolutionary processes. Finally, we highlight that a wide range of physiological systems may be simultaneously affected by stress early in life, thus resulting in correlations between sexual ornamentation, such as song and other cognitive and physiological traits. Such traits may indicate different aspects of development. First, traits may signal how well an individual coped with stressors, and could predict indirect genetic benefits to a female. Second, traits may signal the quality of the developmental environment, and could predict direct benefits to a female via developmentally correlated traits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".