Mating status-dependent “choice” in competitive and noncompetitive arenas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To maximize their reproductive fitness, females of many polyandrous species should display mating status-dependent choice, where they mate relatively indiscriminately once to ensure reproductive output, and then become choosy and mate preferentially with higher-quality males. Despite this potential contrast in choosiness, most mate choice experiments use virgin females. Here, using a panel of 20 isofemale strains that originated from wild-caught flies, we allowed virgin and non-virgin Drosophila melanogaster females to choose among males from the same panel of strains. We used single-male latency trials and a series of male competition trials to help disentangle female “choices” from male-male competitive effects. Most virgin females mated within 2 h of males being introduced, compared with fewer than half of non-virgin females mating over the same period. However, despite mating more rapidly, virgin females did not mate indiscriminately, and their “choices” strongly aligned with those of previously mated females across both the single-male latency and male-male competition trials. Our results challenge the idea that virgin females mate relatively indiscriminately and show that female choice may be more stable than is generally appreciated.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".