Data from: Competition for access to mates predicts female-specific ornamentation and male investment in relative testis size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexually selected ornaments are highly variable and the factors that drive variation in ornament expression are not always clear. Rare instances of female-specific ornament evolution (such as in some dance fly species) are particularly puzzling. While some evidence suggests that such rare instances represent straightforward reversals of sexual selection intensity, the distinct nature of trade-offs between ornaments and offspring pose special constraints in females. To examine whether competition for access to mates generally favours heightened ornament expression, we built a phylogeny and conducted a comparative analysis of Empidinae dance fly taxa that display female-specific ornaments. We show that species with more female-biased operational sex ratios in lek-like mating swarms have greater female ornamentation, and in taxa with more ornate females, male relative testis investment is increased. These findings support the hypothesis that ornament diversity in dance flies depends on female receptivity to mates, which is associated with contests for nutritious nuptial gifts provided by males. Moreover, our results suggest that increases in female receptivity lead to higher levels of sperm competition among males. The incidence of both heightened pre-mating sexual selection on females and post-mating selection on males contradicts assertions that sex-roles are straightforwardly reversed in dance flies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.043 |
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".