MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140140811 · doi:10.1086/431023

The Evolution of Parental Care

2005· review· en· W2140140811 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quarterly Review of Biology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsToronto ZooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaternal careOffspringParental investmentBroodAffect (linguistics)ReproductionMatingValue (mathematics)Investment (military)Fish <Actinopterygii>BiologyReproductive valueDemographyZoologyPsychologyEcologyPregnancyCommunicationFisheryGeneticsStatisticsSociologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our understanding of parental care behavior can be significantly advanced through the application of Williams's Principle, which states that reproduction has not only a benefit but also a cost to lifetime fitness. My laboratory has formalized Williams's Principle into the relative value theorem and found that its application to fishes, the taxa with the most diverse patterns of parental care, can help to explain which sex provides care and how much. In fishes, it is often the male that provides parental care, not because the male obtains greater benefits from this care, but probably because he pays fewer costs. Fish dynamically adjust their investment into parental care according to the number of offspring in their brood, past investment, genetic relatedness, and alternative mating opportunities, all of which affect the value of current offspring relative to potential future offspring. These results may also help us understand the joy and the challenges of parental care in humans.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.364 · 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