MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886880971 · doi:10.1111/jfb.13766

Intentional multiple mating by females in a species where sneak fertilization circumvents female choice for parental males

2018· article· en· W2886880971 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kelly A. Stiver, Holly K. Kindsvater, Natascia Tamburello, Kellie L. Heckman, Joanne Klein, Suzanne H. Alonzo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaYale UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyMatingPaternal careWrasseNest (protein structural motif)ZoologyMating systemBroodMate choiceEcologyPredationSeasonal breederOffspringFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes how individual female ocellated wrasse Symphodus ocellatus distribute their spawning among males and nests in space and time. It is based on previously collected genetic data of larvae from ten different nests (used to reconstruct half and full-sibling groupings both within and among nests on multiple days) and behavioural data of marked females across the reproductive season. Both the genetic analyses and behavioural observations confirm that female S. ocellatus intentionally engage in multiple mating, by repeatedly spawning at the same nest on different days and at several different nests (up to 12 spawning events over 3 weeks), leading to mixed paternity among her young. The main benefit of such high and intentional multiple mating is probably insurance against brood failure due to nest predation, desertion or poor paternal care by the male. These findings reveal that even in systems where females attempt to avoid male-controlled mixed paternity, they may still engage in intentional multiple mating due to these potential benefits.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207