The Disruption Hypothesis Does Not Explain Mate‐Choice Copying in the Guppy (<i>Poecilia reticulata</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In some species, female mate choice is non‐independent as, under certain circumstances, females may copy the mate choice of other nearby females. One standard experimental protocol used to test for mate‐choice copying is the mate‐choice ‘reversal’ protocol. In this protocol, a focal female is allowed to choose between two males as potential mates and then is presented with an opportunity to see another female (i.e. the model female) choose the male that she did not initially choose. The focal is subsequently allowed to again choose between the same set of males. An observed reversal of her initial choice in this second preference test has been previously interpreted as evidence for mate‐choice copying. Alternatively, it has recently been proposed that environmental events, such as seeing the mate choice of nearby females that occur within the visual field of a female actively engaged in mate assessment, may ‘disrupt’ her decision‐making behavior and consequently alter the consistency of her mating preference, and may thus cause mate‐choice reversals. The disruption hypothesis predicts that if a model female is placed near the male that the focal female initially chose, the latter's mate preference would be disrupted and she would subsequently and consistently prefer the male that she initially rejected. Here we examined whether the disruption hypothesis explains mate‐choice copying in the guppy ( Poecilia reticulata ). Our results do not support this hypothesis, but rather provide further support for mate‐choice copying in the guppy.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".