Strategic ejaculation in the egg parasitoid <i>Trichogramma turkestanica</i> (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 1. Several parameters influence sperm allocation by males, including their size and sperm stock, intra‐specific variability, quality of females’, as well as the risk and intensity of sperm competition. 2. Models predict that males should invest the maximum ejaculate size when sperm competition intensity is low. As sperm competition intensity increases, males should decrease the number of sperm transferred during mating. 3. This decrease in sperm transfer to females occurs because the benefits gained by males with each extra unit of expenditure on sperm decrease. When sperm supply is not unlimited, males could expect a better return by keeping some or all sperm for mating under lower competition intensity. 4. In this study, the ejaculate size of males that were kept in groups of one, five or 10 males prior to mating, has been investigated in the haplodiploid egg parasitoid Trichogramma turkestanica Meyer (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae). 5. As predicted by theory, the number of sperm transferred decreased significantly with an increase in the number of rivals. 6. This is the first study showing strategic sperm allocation depending on sperm competition intensity in a parasitoid.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".