MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2520595268 · doi:10.1111/eth.12533

Color Assortative Mating in a Mainland Population of the Poison Frog <i>Oophaga pumilio</i>

2016· article· en· W2520595268 on OpenAlexaff
Meaghan R. Gade, Michelle Hill, Ralph A. Saporito

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
FundersJohn Carroll University
KeywordsAssortative matingMate choiceSexual selectionBiologyAllopatric speciationMatingEcologyPopulationZoologyEvolutionary biologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Assortative mating is a reproductive strategy used by a diversity of animals, in which individuals choose a mate that shares similar characteristics. This mating strategy has the potential to promote the evolution of various sexual signals and has been a proposed mechanism driving and maintaining color variation in the anuran family Dendrobatidae. Most studies have examined this reproductive strategy in the polytypic poison frog, Oophaga pumilio , in the Bocas del Toro archipelago in Panama. Little attention, however, has been given to ancestral populations across this species’ mainland range, where dramatic color polytypism appears to lack. Additionally, most studies are exclusively experimental and investigate mate choice between allopatric populations, neglecting the behaviors of naturally occurring mates. This study observed natural mating pairs within a population of O. pumilio on mainland Costa Rica and tested the prediction that color phenotype of mating females and males would be correlated. Naturally occurring pairs were found to share similar coloration, suggesting that color assortative mating operates in nature, and in a mainland population. Our results indicate that coloration is an important trait in driving the natural mate choices of female O. pumilio , which provides valuable insight into realistic mate selection tactics of this dendrobatid frog.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207