The Relationship Between Resource Control, Association with Females and Male Weapon Size in a Male Dominance Insect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In species with a resource‐defence (male dominance) mating system, males are expected to maximize fitness by controlling resources deemed more valuable by sexually receptive females because these sites attract more mates. Furthermore, males, which control more valuable resources should themselves be of high quality. I experimentally tested these predictions in the laboratory using the sexually dimorphic Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens (Blanchard) (Orthoptera: Tettigonioidea: Anostostomatidae). Male H. crassidens use their mandibular weaponry to fight for control of harems (groups of adult females) that seek shelter in trees cavities (galleries). As predicted, larger galleries housed significantly larger groups of females and males with larger weaponry controlled large galleries significantly more often. Therefore, galleries with a larger volume are likely considered more valuable by males because they house larger harems. However, contrary to prediction, males with larger weaponry did not reside with significantly more females overall because females did not always form the largest possible groups in galleries and males with smaller weaponry were able to reside with single females in small galleries. The latter observation suggests a possible alternative mating strategy by disadvantaged 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".