REMATING IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER: ARE INDIRECT BENEFITS CONDITION DEPENDENT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By measuring the direct and indirect fitness costs and benefits of sexual interactions, the feasibility of alternate explanations for polyandry can be experimentally assessed. This approach becomes more complicated when the relative magnitude of the costs and/or benefits associated with multiple mating (i.e., remating with different males) vary with female condition, as this may influence the strength and direction of sexual selection. Here, using the model organism Drosophila melanogaster, we test whether the indirect benefits that a nonvirgin female gains by remating (“trading-up”) are influenced by her condition (body size). We found that remating by small-bodied, low-fecundity females resulted in the production of daughters of relatively higher fecundity, whereas the opposite pattern was observed for large-bodied females. In contrast, remating had no measurable effect on the relative reproductive success of sons from dams of either body size. These results are consistent with a hypothesis based on sexually antagonistic genetic variation. The implications of these results to our understanding of the evolution and consequences of polyandry are discussed.
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".