MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211741710 · doi:10.1111/eth.13244

Dominant females have brighter ornamentation in a sexually dimorphic lekking species

2021· article· en· W3211741710 on OpenAlexaff
Alexis D. Earl, Richard K. Simpson, Jessica L. Yorzinski

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLek matingBiologySexual selectionSexual dimorphismPlumageMate choiceDominance (genetics)EcologyZoologyMating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Males often exhibit elaborate ornamentation that contributes to their fitness. Similarly, females can also exhibit elaborate ornamentation, but we have a relatively limited understanding of its function. Recent studies have demonstrated that female ornamentation can function in both intrasexual competition and male mate choice, but few studies have been conducted on lekking species. We therefore investigated the possibility that female ornamentation provides information about the dominance status of the bearer, which could mediate intrasexual competition. We examined this possibility using Indian peafowl ( Pavo cristatus ), a sexually dimorphic lekking species in which females exhibit elaborate ornamentation in the form of iridescent green neck plumage. We tested whether female ornamentation predicts dominance status using an information theoretic model averaging approach. We found that females with brighter ornamentation are more socially dominant than females with darker ornamentation. These results suggest that female ornamentation in this species provides social information about the dominance status of the bearer. This study provides insight into the evolution of conspicuous female traits by suggesting a potential role for female ornamentation in intrasexual competition in a lekking species.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207