Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research on fruit fly courtship has mostly focused on males’ behavioral repertoire whereas females have been assumed to respond by either rejecting or accepting males. In many fruit fly species including Drosophila melanogaster, however, mating typically follows an extended period of courtship, which provides ample opportunities for females to inform males about their likelihood of mating. Our experiments indeed revealed that sexually immature females in both D. melanogasterand D. simulans showed responses to conspecific males that were distinct from those of sexually mature females. Furthermore, females’ responses to conspecific males were different from their responses to heterospecific males. Our data indicate that females’ behavioral repertoire early in courtship can inform males about their probability of mating if they persist in courting. We hypothesize (i) that males can rely on behavioral feedback from females for optimally allocating their courtship efforts towards distinct female classes, (ii) that males may learn to modulate their courtship behavior based on specific feedback from females, and (iii) that females may learn to alter their behavior towards distinct types of males in order to elicit the desired male response. Overall, we suggest that, although little explored, female behavior determines the dynamics of courtship and mating and can thus influence sexual selection and incipient speciation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".