MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hybridization without guilt: gene flow and the biological species concept

2001· article· en· W1516862673 on OpenAlexaff
Howard D. Rundle, Felix Breden, Cortland K. Griswold, Arne Ø. Mooers, Rutger Vos, Jeannette Whitton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic algorithmReproductive isolationBiologyEvolutionary biologyGene flowEcological speciationIncipient speciationIsolation (microbiology)Disruptive selectionGeneticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Natural selectionSociologyGeneGenetic variationPopulationBioinformaticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of the genetics of speciation are fundamental to our understanding of its causes and consequences. A tacit assumption of speciation research is that species are real evolutionary units. Different species concepts place different emphases on properties of species and so have the potential to shift the focus of studies of speciation. At present, the genetics of speciation is effectively the genetics of reproductive isolation (Coyne & Orr, 1998). In this vein, Wu et al. have been at the forefront of endeavours to understand the genetic architecture of speciation. Based on this work, Wu now suggests that the biological species concept (BSC) is in need of a major revision and rejects the current focus of speciation research on reproductive isolation (RI). Wu prefers to view RI as an epiphenomenon of secondary interest. We feel that this rejection of RI is unnecessary and overly restrictive, and generally that any modification of the BSC is premature given our current knowledge of the genetics of speciation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207