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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".