Courtship behaviour influences social partner choice in male guppies
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 Although male courtship displays have evolved primarily to sexually attract females, they also generate inadvertent public information that potentially reveals the courter’s relative sexual attractiveness and the perceived quality and sexual receptivity of the female being courted to nearby eavesdropping male competitors, who in turn may use this information to bias their social partner choices. We tested this hypothesis by first presenting individual eavesdropping male guppies (Poecilia reticulata) the opportunity to simultaneously observe two demonstrator males whose courtship behaviour was manipulated experimentally to differ, following which we tested them for their preference to associate socially with either demonstrator males. Test males preferentially associated with the demonstrator male who they had previously observed courting a female over the other (non-courting) demonstrator. This social association preference was not expressed in the absence of a female to court. Our findings highlight the potential for sexual behaviour influencing male-male social associations in nature.
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