Free choice by female sticklebacks: lack of preference for male dominance traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To experimentally assess if a male sexual trait has an influence on female choice and (or) male-male competition, it is essential to separate these two evolutionary forces. Female choice may be obscured by the overriding influence of male-male competition, and it may therefore appear that female interests coincide with male dominance. We approached this problem using the threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, by leashing the males, allowing the female to fully interact and mate with each male, while physical interactions between the males were prevented. Our results show that in this situation, females display no preference for dominant males and no, or only a weak, preference for more colorful males. When the males could interact freely with each other, females "chose" the dominant and the more colorful males, but in this case the dominant male always deprived the female of the opportunity to interact with the subordinate male. When the females were separated physically from the males by glass walls, they demonstrated a preference for males with the most intense red color. This suggests that if females are given only a limited number of cues on which to base their choice (by introducing glass walls), they are attracted to the redness of the males, while in a situation involving free physical and sensory interaction, other factors become more important for females' choice if they have the possibility to make a free choice in the absence of forceful male-male interactions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".