MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170522439 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arh058

Mechanisms and consequences of sexual conflict in garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis, Colubridae)

2004· article· en· W2170522439 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Shine

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThamnophis sirtalisCourtshipBiologyColubridaeMatingSexual conflictCourtship displayZoologyOverwinteringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red-sided garter snakes (<it>Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis</it>) court and mate in early spring around large communal overwintering dens in central Manitoba. Emerging females are immediately covered by dozens or hundreds of vigorously-courting males, potentially imposing significant costs to the female. By manipulating numbers of courting males (both directly and by applying anticourtship pheromones), we quantified the degree to which female dispersal from the den is hindered by courtship. Courted females dispersed only about half as fast as did solitary females. Blood lactate levels were higher in mating than in courting or noncourting snakes of both sexes; the high levels of lactate in mating females support the idea that courtship is physiologically stressful to these animals, perhaps via constraints to female respiration. In arena trials, females that were exercised to exhaustion before courtship mated with smaller males than did control females. The spatial distribution of snakes around the den exhibits substantial heterogeneity, with densities often varying markedly between adjacent areas. Arena trials mimicking this heterogeneity showed that unmated females avoided parts of the enclosure containing scent cues from males. Our data support the hypothesis that courtship in <it>T. s. parietalis</it> confers significant costs to females, and that female behaviors have evolved to reduce those costs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations49
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207