The importance of olfactory signals in the gasterosteid mating system: sticklebacks go multimodal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stickleback fishes are renowned for the complexity of their nuptial colour signal. In this paper I show that the nuptial signal is in fact multimodal: male-based olfactory cues also transmit information to receptive females. Both female three-spined and brook sticklebacks recognized the scent from each other's males, but discriminated in favour of their own males when asked to choose between conspecific and heterospecific odours. Although females were not attracted to scent from the more distantly related guppy, Poecilia reticulata, changes in their baseline behaviours indicated that they perceived its presence. Olfactory cues act as long distance messages, allowing a female to detect the ‘I am here’ message from the male before she can actually see him. Studies of interactions between temporally displaced signals indicate that the first cue (in this case chemical) functions to alert the receiver to the presence of the second cue (visual), increasing the probability of its detection and recognition. So, although olfactory cues do not appear to be as species-specific as visual cues, their function as alerting stimuli may not require such fine-tuning.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".