Inbreeding Avoidance in Male Primates: A Response to Female Mate Choice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Inbreeding often has negative fitness consequences for primates, which have led to the evolution of inbreeding avoidance strategies in a number of species. In polygynous primates, females may suffer a higher fitness cost from inbreeding than males and are thus expected to exhibit a lower tolerance for inbreeding. Nevertheless, it is apparent that inbreeding avoidance behaviours are common in both female and male polygynous primates. In this perspectives article, I review the evidence that female mate choice can lead to male inbreeding avoidance behaviours in polygynous primates. I conclude that male inbreeding avoidance may be strongly driven by female mate choice at both proximate and ultimate levels. To better understand the extent to which this pattern applies across the primate order, studies are needed on the separate effects of participating in inbred matings and producing inbred offspring on male and female lifetime reproductive success. It would also be useful to examine how inbreeding avoidance strategies vary across primate mating systems. Finally, measuring the covariance between female choice and male inbreeding avoidance behaviour, and between male inbreeding avoidance behaviour and male fitness, would help to clarify the role of female mate choice in the evolution of male inbreeding avoidance.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".