SEXUAL MEDICINE: Sexual Selection and Genital Evolution: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Genital morphology (especially male) among the animal kingdom is characterized by extensive differences that even members of closely related species with similar general morphology may have remarkably diverse genitalia. AIM: To present the sexual medicine specialist with a basic understanding of the current hypotheses on genital evolution with an emphasis on the sexual selection theories. METHODS: A review of current literature on the theories of genital evolution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Analysis of the supporting evidence for the sexual selection theories of genital evolution. RESULTS: Several theories have been proposed to explain genital evolution. Currently, the sexual selection theories are being considered to present valid and solid evidence explaining genital evolution. However, other theories, including sexual conflict, are still being investigated. All theories of genital evolution have their own weaknesses and strengths. CONCLUSIONS: Given that many complex biological mechanisms, mostly unknown yet, are involved in the process of genital evolution, it is thus reasonable to conclude that not one theory can independently explain genital evolution. It is likely that these mechanisms may prove to have synergistic rather than exclusive effects.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".