Extra‐pair paternity among Great Tits <i>Parus major</i> following manipulation of male signals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female Great Tits are known to eavesdrop on the singing behaviour of males. It is unknown, however, whether manipulation of these signals is sufficient to influence extra‐pair copulations, or whether such potentially costly reproductive decisions are unaffected by altering short‐term signals of condition. Using interactive playbacks, we systematically engaged males in territorial contests in which we could control whether the focal male won or lost the interaction, regardless of the males’ true potential. We then determined the levels and patterns of extra‐pair paternity among experimental and neighbouring pairs using DNA microsatellite analysis. Extra‐pair young were found in equal frequency among the nests of males allowed to win interactions as among those who lost interactions. However, cuckolded males were significantly less variable in allele sizes across the five microsatellite alleles tested than males who were not cuckolded. As measures of genetic variability are increasingly being found to correlate with individual fitness, this may suggest that females are attentive to underlying measures of condition when making extra‐pair decisions. Short‐term modification of the males’ perceived quality may be insufficient to cause females to alter extra‐pair decisions.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it