High resource valuation fuels “desperado” fighting tactics in female jumping spiders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opponent asymmetries often determine the probability of winning a fight in agonistic situations. In many animal systems, the asymmetries that drive the dynamics and outcome of male—male contests are related to resource holding potential (RHP) or territory ownership. However, recent studies have shown that this is not the case among females and suggest that resource valuation may be more important in that context. We studied contests between the female jumping spider, Phidippus clarus, and compared them with male–male contests in this same species. Our observations document several key differences between the sexes: Precontact and contact phases are longer in females, ritualized displays are rare in females but common among males, and female fights are more likely to end in injury or death. In sharp contrast with male contests, female weight and size do not correlate with signaling behavior, and the outcome of fights is predicted by differences in resource valuation rather than RHP. We interpret these differences in light of the different natural history of the sexes and discuss how the economics of fighting may lead to the evolution of ritualized displays in males and a “desperado effect” in females.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".