Data from: Are flies kind to kin? The role of intra- and inter-sexual relatedness in mediating reproductive conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As individual success often comes at the expense of others, interactions between the members of a species are frequently antagonistic, especially in the context of reproduction. In theory, this conflict may be reduced in magnitude when kin interact, as cooperative behaviour between relatives can result in increased inclusive fitness. Recent tests of the potential role of cooperative behaviour between brothers in Drosophila melanogaster have proved to be both exciting and controversial. We set out to replicate these experiments, which have profound implications for the study of kin selection and sexual conflict, and to expand upon them by also examining the potential role of kinship between males and females in reproductive interactions. While we did observe reduced fighting and courtship effort between competing brothers, contrary to previous studies we did not detect any fitness benefit to females as a result of the modification of male antagonistic behaviours. Furthermore, we did not observe any differential treatment of females by their brothers, as would be expected if the intensity of sexual conflict was mediated by kin selection. In the light of these results, we propose an alternative explanation for observed differences in male–male conflict and provide preliminary empirical support for this hypothesis.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.029 | 0.021 |
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".