Exploring male and female preferences, male body condition, and pair bonds in the evolution of male sexual aggregation: the case of the Common Quail (<i>Coturnix coturnix</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the unresolved problems of male sexual aggregations is that a small number of males monopolize most matings. The Common Quail ( Coturnix coturnix (L., 1758)), is a bird species that has a short life span and a reproductive strategy that involves male aggregations, which females visit for the purpose of mating. Once a mate has been chosen, birds leave the aggregation and form pair-bonds until incubation begins. This remarkable mating system might represent an intermediate step between lekking and pair-bond mating systems in which males provide some parental care. We designed a field experiment with funnel traps simulating male groups and single females to observe male and female preferences, and to examine the possible evolutionary process that drives males to aggregate. Radio-tagged individuals were also monitored to study pair-bonding behaviour in the field. Our results suggest that body condition is an important factor in male group formation, and that males with better body condition tend to aggregate, while males in poorer condition wait for extra-pair copulation opportunities. Moreover, this mating system creates a situation in which a queuing strategy might occur.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".