Finding fathers: spatio‐temporal analysis of paternity assignment in grey seals (<i>Halichoerus grypus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Molecular studies of pinniped breeding systems exhibit a broad range of agreement and disagreement with observational indices of male breeding success. Grey seal studies have reported considerable discrepancies between genetic and behavioural paternity measures that have been interpreted as evidence of previously unidentified male strategies and/or tactics. Therefore, these studies have the power to fundamentally alter our perceptions of mating systems. However, other pinniped studies exhibit no such disagreements, and one possible explanation for disparities may be sampling biases in space and time. Therefore, it is essential that potential sampling biases are examined to evaluate the likelihood of previously unidentified male strategies. We examined paternities assigned at the North Rona grey seal colony between 1999 and 2002 in relation to concurrent detailed behavioural and locational data for males and females. We found that (i) for females observed in sexual interaction(s) during their oestrus period, it was highly probable that one of the interacting males fathered their next pup; (ii) over 80% of assigned paternities agreed with observations of the in-colony behaviour and spatio-temporal proximity of the males and females involved; and (iii) a minority of females exhibit mate choice and seek sires outside their local male's home range, although evidence suggests that these females mate on the colony rather than at sea. In conclusion, nearly all paternities assigned agreed with expectation based upon detailed knowledge of the spatio-temporal patterns of individuals during the breeding season. We found little evidence of unidentified male strategies at North Rona, Scotland, whereas further examination of mechanisms of female choice may be productive.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".