The effects of male harm vary with female quality and environmental complexity in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mate competition provides the opportunity for sexual selection which often acts strongly on males, but also the opportunity for sexual conflict that can alter natural selection on females. Recent attention has focused on the potential of sexual conflict to weaken selection on females if male sexual attention, and hence harm, is disproportionately directed towards high- over low-quality females, thereby reducing the fitness difference between these females. However, sexual conflict could instead strengthen selection on females if low-quality females are more sensitive to male harm than high-quality females, thereby magnifying fitness differences between them. We quantify the effects of male exposure on low- versus high-quality females in Drosophila melanogaster in each of two environments (‘simple’ and ‘complex’) that are known to alter behavioural interactions. We show that the effects of male harm are greater for low- compared to high-quality females in the complex but not the simple environment, consistent with mate competition strengthening selection on females in the former but not in the latter environment.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".