Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mate choice by males has been documented in many taxa including fruit flies (Drosophila spp.). It is still unclear, however, whether male mate choice varies much with age and one cannot readily predict the direction of change in male choosiness with age. We compared mate choice in young (1 day old) and mature (4 days old) male fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster). Young males spent much less time courting heterospecific females than did mature males, but both male categories spent similar time courting conspecific females. We obtained similar results indicating higher selectivity of young than mature males in descendants of wild-caught flies, when males had an opportunity to learn to avoid heterospecific females and when males had a choice between courting conspecific and heterospecific females. The common methodology in the discipline has been to let virgin flies age for at least a few days prior to their use in experiments. Our experiments, which employed protocols sensitive to male age and experience, suggest that male fruit flies may be more choosy than previously thought and hence can contribute much more to sexual selection and incipient speciation than previously appreciated.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".