MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SPERM PARASITISM IN ANTS: SELECTION FOR INTERSPECIFIC MATING AND HYBRIDIZATION

2006· article· en· W2093854878 on OpenAlexaff
Gary J. Umphrey

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHaplodiploidyParasitismEcologyEusocialityMating systemBiological dispersalBrood parasiteMatingZoologyPolygynyHymenopteraEvolutionary biologyOffspringPopulationGeneticsHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interspecific mating in eusocial Hymenoptera can be favored under certain conditions even if all hybrid offspring are completely infertile. This exploits two key features of the eusocial Hymenoptera: a haplodiploid genetic system and reproductive division of labor in females. Interspecifically mated queens can still produce viable sons that will mate intraspecifically. Apparent reduced fitness resulting from producing infertile daughter gynes can be also offset by advantages conferred by hybrid workers. An important advantage is likely to be superior ability at using marginal habitats. Interspecifically mated queens can nest in sites where intraspecific competition will be low. By mating interspecifically, a queen trades expected reproductive success through female offspring for a higher probability of achieving some reproductive success. Females that mate interspecifically can be considered "sperm parasites" on the males of the other species. I provide evidence that sperm parasitism is responsible for widespread hybridization in North America among two species of the ant subgenus Acanthomyops (genus Lasius), and review evidence for sperm parasitism in other hybridization phenomena in ants. Sperm parasitism in ants represents a novel form of social parasitism in ants and a dispersal polymorphism. It may also act as a precursor to the evolution of some other recently discovered phenomena, such as genetic caste determination.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcologySame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207