Courtship strategies of white-tailed deer and mule deer males when living in sympatry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Courtship behaviour reflects characteristics of an animal’s general biology, while also reflecting selective pressures specific to reproduction. Mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) and white-tailed deer ( O. virginianus ) are sister species that differ in antipredator behaviour and sociality. We observed sympatric mule deer and white-tailed males to document their grouping patterns, courtship tactics, and aggressive interactions during the breeding season. Consistent with the hypothesis that courtship strategies reflect species differences in antipredator tactics and sociality, mule deer males were more likely than white-tailed males to tend females in multi male–multi female groups. White-tailed males almost exclusively tended females in isolated pairs and prevented other males from joining their groups. However, both species spent more time in isolated pairs as courtship advanced, likely to reduce competition. Our results enabled us to distinguish courtship behaviours that reflect contrasting antipredator tactics and sociality from courtship behaviours that reflect reproductive selective pressures that the species share.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it