MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737997036 · doi:10.1111/eth.12650

Sexually dimorphic effect of mating on the melanotic encapsulation response in the harem‐defending Wellington tree weta, <i>Hemideina crassidens</i> (Orthoptera: Tettigonioidea: Anostostomatidae)

2017· article· en· W2737997036 on OpenAlexafffund
Clint D. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyHaremMatingZoologyOrthopteraSexual dimorphismSexual selectionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reproductive activities are generally costly to immune responsiveness because limited resources required by reproduction are diverted away from immunity (and vice versa). Reproduction, however, is not expected to affect the immune response in males and females similarly as mating is expected to negatively affect male immunity more so than female immunity. Here, I test the phenotypic plasticity hypothesis in the Wellington tree weta ( Hemideina crassidens ), a sexually dimorphic orthopteran insect that is endemic to New Zealand. My laboratory experiment showed that although males had higher rates of melanotic encapsulation than females, contrary to prediction, females were the only sex significantly affected by mating and the effect was positive. In addition to immunity differing between the sexes, immune function can differ intrasexually, particularly when males are polymorphic and different investment strategies are used to maximize fitness. Male H. crassidens exhibit alternative mating strategies that are represented by three different morphotypes. I therefore explored whether the morphs differed in their melanotic encapsulation response and whether mating affected the morphs differently. I found no difference among morphs or an effect of mating on male immune response.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207