MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023636669 · doi:10.1163/1568539x-bja10008

Testing the differential cost assumption of the handicap hypothesis with a tropical jumping spider

2020· article· en· W3023636669 on OpenAlex
Leonardo Castilho, Maydianne C. B. Andrade, Regina H. Macedo

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJumping spiderJumpingCourtshipSpiderTraitSexual selectionDifferential (mechanical device)White (mutation)BiologyEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The handicap hypothesis predicts that more elaborate males attract more predators, but are also better able to escape attacks. Thus, a unit increase in trait elaboration has a lower cost for a high-quality male (i.e., differential cost). Although widely accepted, the handicap hypothesis has seldom been appropriately tested, especially concerning the differential cost assumption. Here, we tested this assumption using the jumping spider Hasarius adansoni . The courtship display of male H. adansoni involves bright white patches that contrast with their dark-coloured body. In experimental trials, we measured male escape capacity following a simulated predatory attack. Measurements of escape capacity were correlated to the size of white patches. Contrary to expectations, spiders with larger white patches did not exhibit better escape capacity. We conclude that this trait does not function as a handicap. It is possible that other sexual selection processes are at work.

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 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 score0.373
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.140 · 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