MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390986106 · doi:10.3390/ani14020296

Neurobiology of Pathogen Avoidance and Mate Choice: Current and Future Directions

2024· review· en· W4390986106 on OpenAlexafffund
Dante Cantini, Elena Choleris, Martin Kavaliers

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDisgustMate choiceSensory cuePsychologyAvoidance behaviourAnxietyCognitive psychologyOlfactionNeuroscienceBiologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyMatingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals are under constant threat of parasitic infection. This has influenced the evolution of social behaviour and has strong implications for sexual selection and mate choice. Animals assess the infection status of conspecifics based on various sensory cues, with odours/chemical signals and the olfactory system playing a particularly important role. The detection of chemical cues and subsequent processing of the infection threat that they pose facilitates the expression of disgust, fear, anxiety, and adaptive avoidance behaviours. In this selective review, drawing primarily from rodent studies, the neurobiological mechanisms underlying the detection and assessment of infection status and their relations to mate choice are briefly considered. Firstly, we offer a brief overview of the aspects of mate choice that are relevant to pathogen avoidance. Then, we specifically focus on the olfactory detection of and responses to conspecific cues of parasitic infection, followed by a brief overview of the neurobiological systems underlying the elicitation of disgust and the expression of avoidance of the pathogen threat. Throughout, we focus on current findings and provide suggestions for future directions and research.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207