The relative importance of RHP and resource quality in contests with ownership asymmetries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ownership asymmetries lead to owners (residents) having substantial contest advantages over intruders, and this may overwhelm the fighting advantage of large body size. Why such an ownership advantage occurs, however, is not clear and requires further investigation. Here, we use a jumping spider, Phidippus clarus, to examine the role of ownership asymmetries and resource quality in determining contest outcomes and assessment strategies of both intruders and residents. Resident male P. clarus cohabit with and defend virgin females where reproductive potential increases with body size. Here, we show that ownership plays a significant role in contest outcomes, despite the previously demonstrated importance of body size when males encounter each other in the absence of a female. Owners have a substantial advantage over intruders with residency being more important than body size in determining contest outcomes. Intruders gave up more quickly when owners were larger, suggesting that owners follow a partial mutual assessment strategy. In contrast, contests won by intruders were “wars of attrition” where owners fought until resources were depleted as they were governed by the resource holding potential of the resident (loser). Finally, female size (reproductive potential) did not alter contest outcomes; however, it did affect how quickly contests were escalated. We highlight the importance of understanding the life history and reproductive biology along with the behavior and ecology of the species under study to truly understand the traits associated with fitness in contests.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".