Insights to the mating strategies of Habronattus americanus jumping spiders from natural behaviour and staged interactions in the wild
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We documented natural behaviour and staged intersexual interactions of Habronattus americanus jumping spiders in the wild in order to clarify three aspects of their mating strategies: (1) Do males invest more than females in locomotory mate search? (2) Do females exert strong mate choice? (3) Do direct contests occur among males? Males apparently invested heavily in mate search, travelling more than females yet eating nothing. Conversely, females frequently hunted and spent 10% of their time feeding. Females encountered one male per hour, likely affording them a high degree of choice among prospective mates. Accordingly, they promoted the termination of each interaction and ultimately rejected nearly all courting males. Male–male interactions were brief and did not feature direct antagonism. Our findings suggest that mate competition in H. americanus is characterized by male scramble competition for dispersed females, and that female mate choice may exert strong selection on male sexual display traits.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it