Social plasticity in reproduction in female Drosophila melanogaster!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The expression of behaviours in individuals are not always fixed and may vary according to the specific environmental conditions encountered by an individual. There is significant evidence that male fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, have the capacity to adjust their courtship behaviours depending on the social environment they encounter; however, the extent of plasticity in behavioural responses by females have received much less scrutiny. In this study, we set out to determine whether the presence and/or the types of conspecifics an individual female encounters influences her subsequent reproductive behaviour and patterns of egg production. In our assay, we housed medium-sized adult virgin females in experimental social treatments; either in isolation, or with other conspecific females (that were either of large- or small- body size) to observe how the presence and/or type of social interactions altered later reproductive decisions and outcomes. While in some instances female flies behaved differently depending on their housing treatment, these responses were not particularly consistent between flies obtained from different populations, nor with previously described patterns. Potential contributing factors for these results, and their implications for the future study of female reproductive plasticity are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.012 |
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".