Polyandry and tibial spur chewing in the Carolina ground cricket (Eunemobius carolinus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During mating, the female Carolina ground cricket ( Eunemobius carolinus (Scudder, 1877)) chews specialized spurs on the male’s hind tibia for access to his hemolymph. One potential benefit to spur chewing includes nutritional acquisition from male hemolymph. A method for testing this hypothesis is to manipulate food quality or quantity, with the prediction that mating rate will increase as food quality or quantity decreases. We manipulated diet quality in adult females and provided them with four consecutive mating opportunities. We measured four aspects of mating behaviour (mating rate, latency to copulate, copulation duration, and spur chewing duration) and three of female fitness (egg number, egg-laying rate, and life span). Females of the two diet treatments did not differ significantly in any of the measured mating behaviours, although females fed a low-quality diet lived longer. Male life span did not correlate with any measured variable, although males that experienced more matings and longer total times of copulation and spur chewing lost more mass. These results suggest that spur chewing may be costly for males, although we detected no evidence that this behaviour was a benefit to the female or represented a form of male coercion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".