MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168100202 · doi:10.1111/eth.12187

Inbreeding Avoidance in Male Primates: A Response to Female Mate Choice?

2013· article· en· W2168100202 on OpenAlexaff
Erica Tennenhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInbreedingInbreeding avoidanceMate choiceBiologyInbreeding depressionMatingReproductive successPolygynyZoologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.016

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207