Quantifying the gender load: can population crosses reveal interlocus sexual conflict?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six sister populations of Drosophila melanogaster kept under identical environmental conditions for greater than 600 generations were reciprocally crossed to investigate the incidence of population divergence in allopatry. Population crosses directly influenced fitness, mating frequency, and sperm competition patterns. Changes in both female remating rate and the outcome of male sperm competition (P1, P2) in response to foreign males were consistent with intersexual coevolution. Moreover, seven of the 30 crosses between foreign mates resulted in significant reductions in female fitness, whereas two resulted in significant increases, compared to local matings. This tendency for foreign males to reduce female fitness may be interpreted as evidence for either sexually antagonistic coevolution or the disruption of mutualistic interactions. However, instances in which female fitness improved via cohabitation with foreign males may better reveal sexual conflict, signalling release from the cost of interacting with locally adapted males. By this metric, female reproduction in D. melanogaster is strongly constrained by local adaptation by males, a situation that would promote antagonistic coevolution between the sexes. We conclude that sexual selection can promote population differentiation in allopatry and that sexual conflict is likely to have played a role in population differentiation in this study system.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".