Males mate indiscriminately in the tropical jumping spider <i>Hasarius adansoni</i> (Audouin, 1826)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditionally, sexual selection has been seen as a process in which choosy females select non‐choosy males. Recent studies, however, have challenged this view by showing that males can also be choosy in many species. We assessed the sexual preferences in males of the tropical jumping spider Hasarius adansoni (Audouin, 1826). We measured mating effort in males and determined how female quality influences offspring quality, quantity, and survival. We also estimated total sperm load and how much sperm was invested in a mating with a particular female. We found no evidence of male mating effort in terms of mating frequency nor sperm investment. Similarly, there was no relationship between female quality (i.e., size and condition) and offspring quality (i.e., survival and feeding performance) or quantity. We found strong evidence that the sperm invested in a particular female is a function of the amount of sperm the male had available for usage at that particular mating. The fact that males probably find females sequentially, along with the lack of relationship between female quality and offspring quality/quantity, likely explains the lack of differences in mating effort by males.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".