MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Speciation with gene flow could be common

2008· letter· en· W1556222699 on OpenAlexaff
Patrik Nosil

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene flowAllopatric speciationBiologyGenetic algorithmEcological speciationEvolutionary biologyGenetic divergenceParapatric speciationDivergence (linguistics)PopulationGeneGenetic variationGeneticsGenetic diversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The likelihood of speciation in the face of homogenizing gene flow (i.e. without complete geographical isolation) is one of the most debated topics in evolutionary biology. Demonstrating this phenonemon is hampered by the difficulty of isolating the effects of time since population divergence vs. gene flow on levels of molecular genetic differentiation. For example, weak genetic differentiation between taxa could be due to recent divergence, gene flow, or a combination of these factors. Nonetheless, a number of convincing examples of speciation with gene flow have recently emerged, owing in part to the development of new analytical methods designed to estimate gene flow specifically. A recent example of speciation with gene flow in salamanders (Niemiller et al. 2008) further advances our understanding of this phenonemon, by showing that gene flow between cave and spring salamanders was ongoing during speciation, rather than having occurred after a long period of allopatric divergence. Future work on the ecological and genetic factors reducing gene flow will likely increase our understanding of the conditions that faciliate divergence in the face of gene flow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0170.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations528
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207