Data for: Assortative mating in an ecological context: Effects of mate choice errors and relative species abundance on the frequency and asymmetry of hybridization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frequency and asymmetry of mixed-species mating set the initial stage for the ecological and evolutionary implications of hybridization. How such patterns of mixed-species mating, in turn, are influenced by the combination of mate choice errors and relative species abundance remain largely unknown. We develop a mathematical model that generates predictions for how relative species abundances and mate choice errors affect hybridization patterns. When mate choice errors are small (<5%) the highest frequency of hybridization occurs when one of the hybridizing species is at low abundance, but when mate choice errors are high (>5%) the highest hybridization frequency occurs when species occur in equal proportions. Furthermore, females of the less abundant species are overrepresented in mixed-species matings. We compare our theoretical predictions with empirical data on naturally hybridizing Ficedula flycatchers and find that hybridization is highest when the two species occur in equal abundance, implying rather high mate choice errors. We discuss ecological and evolutionary implications of our findings and encourage future work on hybrid zone dynamics that take demographic aspects, such as relative species abundance, into account.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.049 |
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".