MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140402704 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1726

Sexually transmitted infection and the evolution of serial monogamy

2014· article· en· W2140402704 on OpenAlexaff
David V. McLeod, Troy Day

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromiscuityVirulencePathogenBiologyTransmission (telecommunications)SterilityPopulationMatingEvolutionary biologyGeneticsEcologyDemographyTelecommunicationsGeneComputer scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The selective forces shaping mating systems have long been of interest to biologists. One particular selective pressure that has received comparatively little attention is sexually transmitted infections (STIs). While it has been hypothesized that STIs could drive the evolutionary emergence of monogamy, there is little theoretical support. Here we use an evolutionary invasion analysis to determine what aspects of pathogen virulence and transmission are necessary for serial monogamy to evolve in a promiscuous population. We derive a biologically intuitive invasion condition in terms of population-specific quantities. From this condition, we obtain two main results. First, when pathogen virulence causes mortality rather than sterility, monogamy is more likely to evolve. Second, we find that at intermediate pathogen transmission rates, monogamy is the most selectively advantageous, whereas at high- and low-transmission rates, monogamy is generally selected against. As a result, it is possible for a pathogen to be highly virulent, yet for promiscuity to persist.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207