MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140101349 · doi:10.1139/z06-127

Female mating frequency increases with temperature in two cricket species, Gryllodes sigillatus and Acheta domesticus (Orthoptera: Gryllidae)

2006· article· en· W2140101349 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tashika K. Kindle, Kristen M. Johnson, Tracie M. Ivy, Carie B. Weddle, Scott K. Sakaluk

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrthoptera Research and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIllinois State University
KeywordsAchetaBiologyMatingOrthopteraCricketZoologyField cricketSexual selectionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the effect of temperature on calling song of male crickets has been widely studied, its influence on female mating behaviour remains largely unexplored. We examined the effect of varying temperature on female mating frequency in two cricket species ( Gryllodes sigillatus (F. Walker, 1869) (= Gryllodes supplicans (F. Walker, 1859)) and Acheta domesticus L., 1758) by providing females with multiple mating partners and recording the number of matings over 72 h intervals using time-lapse video recording. Female mating frequency increased with temperature in both species, but increased more steeply in A. domesticus than in G. sigillatus. Temperature accounted for approximately 50% of the variation in female mating frequency. These results suggest that the threshold for mating in females is temperature dependent, such that at lower temperatures only certain males are able to elicit the female mounting response required for successful mating. If temperature affects female selectivity, then male mating success in different seasons may vary, with a wider range of males gaining the opportunity to copulate at warmer times of the year. Consequently, the intensity of sexual selection may vary seasonally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicOrthoptera Research and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207