Large testes and brain sizes in odontocetes (order Cetacea, suborder Odontoceti): the influence of mating system on encephalization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about their mating systems, but odontocetes may utilize the same types of mating systems as terrestrial mammals. Species with relatively large testes are likely to be polygynandrous, while species with smaller testes and greater sexual size dimorphism (SSD) are predicted to be polygynous. The “Machiavellian intelligence or sexual conflict” hypothesis predicts that polygynadrous species also evolved larger brains both to coerce conspecifics to mate and to resist mating attempts by undesirable mates. The “costly tissue” hypothesis predicts that species investing heavily in testes invest less in brain tissue and vice versa to conserve energy. Residual testes and brain mass measurements were used to test the sexual conflict and costly tissue hypotheses in 40 species of odontocetes. Correlations were performed on both raw data and independent contrasts to control for phylogeny. There was a significant positive correlation between residual testes mass and SSD in both data sets, and between residual testes mass and residual brain mass in the non-phylogenetically controlled data set. Results indicate a negative relationship between increased testes masses and SSD in odontocetes. There was no support for the costly tissue hypothesis. Support for Machiavellian intelligence or sexual conflict hypothesis was found only when phylogenetic effects were not considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".