Detecting sexual conflict and sexually antagonistic coevolution
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We begin by providing an operational definition of sexual conflict that applies to both inter- and intralocus conflict. Using this definition, we examine a series of simple coevolutionary models to elucidate fruitful approaches for detecting interlocus sexual conflict and resultant sexually antagonistic coevolution. We then use published empirical examples to illustrate the utility of these approaches. Three relevant attributes emerge. First, the dynamics of sexually antagonistic coevolution may obscure the conflict itself. Second, competing models of inter-sexual coevolution may yield similar population patterns near equilibria. Third, a variety of evolutionary forces underlying competing models may be acting simultaneously near equilibria. One main conclusion is that studies of emergent patterns in extant populations (e.g. studies of population and/or female fitness) are unlikely to allow us to distinguish among competing coevolutionary models. Instead, we need more research aimed at identifying the forces of selection acting on shared traits and sexually antagonistic traits. More specifically, we need a greater number of functional studies of female traits as well as studies of the consequences of both male and female traits for female fitness. A mix of selection and manipulative studies on these is likely the most promising route.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it