MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170184206 · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.26.14449

Sexual selection and speciation in field crickets

2000· article· en· W2170184206 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Gray, William H. Cade

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual selectionBiologyGenetic algorithmEvolutionary biologyField cricketCricketTraitZoologyMate choiceRange (aeronautics)Character displacementMatingSympatric speciationSympatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent theoretical work has shown that sexual selection may cause speciation under a much wider range of conditions than previously supposed. There are, however, no empirical studies capable of simultaneously evaluating several key predictions that contrast this with other speciation models. We present data on male pulse rates and female phonotactic responses to pulse rates for the field cricket Gryllus texensis; pulse rate is the key feature distinguishing G. texensis from its cryptic sister species G. rubens. We show (i) genetic variation in male song and in female preference for song, (ii) a genetic correlation between the male trait and the female preference, and (iii) no character displacement in male song, female song recognition, female species-level song discrimination, or female song preference. Combined with previous work demonstrating a lack of hybrid inviability, these results suggest that divergent sexual selection may have caused speciation between these taxa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.238 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations222
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207