Data from: Male mate choice in the Trinidadian guppy is influenced by the phenotype of audience sexual rivals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In populations with male mate-choice copying, males may mitigate their risk of sexual competition by reducing their preference for a particular female in the presence of sexual rivals (audience). Because of the cost of missed mating opportunities from such an audience effect, males should reduce their mating preference to a greater extent in the presence of more sexually competitive rivals compared with less competitive ones. We tested this hypothesis using the Trinidadian guppy (Poecilia reticulata). We compared a focal male’s baseline mating preference for either of 2 stimulus females, which differed in overall body size, in the absence of any sexual rival to his preference for the same females in the presence of a sexual rival using dichotomous-choice tests. Focal and audience males differed in body length and proportion of their body covered in orange and black pigmentation. In the presence of a larger rival, focal males exhibited a greater reduction in preference for their initially preferred female compared to focal males in the presence of a smaller rival, irrespective of whether the latter male was more or less ornamented than the focal. The strength of the initial mating preference of focal males and the magnitude of the audience effect were significantly positively correlated when the audience male was larger than the focal male. Male guppies are thus sensitive to the phenotype of nearby males and alter their preference for a particular mate to a greater extent in the presence of relatively larger eavesdropping males compared to smaller ones.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".