MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252634385 · doi:10.22215/etd/2013-09913

Testing for a Link Between Personality and Mate-Choice Copying Tendency in the Trinidadian Guppy (Poecilia Reticulata)

2013· dissertation· en· W4252634385 on OpenAlexaff
Alisa B. Miller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoldnessPoeciliaGuppyPersonalityMate choiceCopyingContext (archaeology)PsychologyBig Five personality traitsSocial psychologySexual selectionDevelopmental psychologyMatingBiologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An unexplored area of research is whether personality influences how individuals use social information in a mating context.Here, I experimentally tested, using virgin female Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata), whether (i) exploratory behaviour and boldness in individual females are repeatable over time, (ii) the exploratory tendency of individuals is correlated with their boldness, (iii) mate-choice copying behaviour is repeatable, and (iv) personality is correlated with an individual's tendency to mate-choice copy when given the opportunity to do so.Although both personality scores varied widely among females, neither exploratory or boldness behaviour was significantly repeatable, nor were they correlated with each other.Mate-choice copying behaviour was also not found to be repeatable, and neither personality trait was correlated with an individual's tendency to mate-choice copy.These results suggest that female guppies were able to adjust their exploratory behaviour and boldness independently of one another.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→