MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The diversification of mate preferences by natural and sexual selection

2009· article· en· W2170637920 on OpenAlexaff
Howard D. Rundle, Stephen F. Chenoweth, Mark W. Blows

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsOntario GenomicsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySexual selectionMate choiceNatural selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Ecological selectionEvolutionary biologyDiversification (marketing strategy)Genetic algorithmGeneralityPreferenceExperimental evolutionEcologyMatingGeneticsGeneArtificial intelligenceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of sexual display traits or preferences for them in response to divergent natural selection will alter sexual selection within populations, yet the role of sexual selection in ecological speciation has received little empirical attention. We evolved 12 populations of Drosophila serrata in a two-way factorial design to investigate the roles of natural and sexual selection in the evolution of female mate preferences for male cuticular hydrocarbons (CHCs). Mate preferences weakened in populations evolving under natural selection alone, implying a cost in the absence of their expression. Comparison of the vectors of linear sexual selection revealed that the populations diverged in the combination of male CHCs that females found most attractive, although this was not significant using a mixed modelling approach. Changes in preference direction tended to evolve when natural and sexual selection were unconstrained, suggesting that both processes may be the key to initial stages of ecological speciation. Determining the generality of this result will require data from various species across a range of novel environments.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations51
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207