The size of hoverfly mimics relative to their models and the potential role of size in the evolution of mimicry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body size has received little attention as a mimetic trait, despite evidence that predators can discriminate mimics and models based on size.This thesis aims to explore the potential role of size in the evolution of mimicry.More specifically, it will investigate if mimics that are readily discriminable in size from their models experience reduced selection on colour pattern similarity.Firstly, we investigated if selection on colour similarity would decrease when size was highly discriminable for computer-generated prey and results indicated that when mimics and models were highly discriminable in size, there was less selection on colour.We then also investigated if there was a relationship between mimetic fidelity and the size of mimics relative to their model in hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae).No significant relationship between mimetic fidelity and relative size was found; instead a positive relationship between mimetic fidelity and the size of their hymenopteran models was found.Overall, this thesis aims to explore the role size may have in the evolution of mimicry.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it