Alternative Strategy of Mophorlogy and Vocal Behavior in Burying Beetle (Nicrophorus nepalensis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Competition for reproductive resources is a popular topic in behavioral ecology. Burying beetles’ body size determines the victory in the competition for breeding resources1,2. The small male beetles who usually lose in the competion could adpot alternative strategy by being satellite males to reproduce offspring3. It has been observed in male Nicrophorus spp. that there is an obviour secondary sexual characteristic on their clypeus, and secondary sexual characteristic degeneration has been found on some small males. This study investigate the relationship between secondary sexual characteristic degeneration and body size in males and compare the strategies used by different types of male beetles in competition in term of vocalization structure and vocal behavior. We reveal small inferior males would disguise as females with degenerative secondary sexual characteristic and being silent to avoid attacks from dominant males. Males’ size and development of secondary sexual characteristic are impacted by the acquired food intake instead of gene. And we found the difference of vocal behavior between genders when they encounter different individuals. This research highlights satelite males would employ mixed strategy based on developmental plasticity to lower the attention of dominant males and beetles would adopt conditional strategy with vocal behavior in competion.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".