MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RECENT AND ANCIENT ASEXUALITY IN TIMEMA WALKINGSTICKS

2002· article· en· W1966681575 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Law, Bernard J. Crespi

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsexualityBiologyIntraspecific competitionPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyParthenogenesisAsexual reproductionPopulationZoologyGeneticsDemographyGeneHuman sexuality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the evolutionary age of asexual lineages should help in inferring the temporal scale under which asexuality and sex evolve and assessing selective factors involved in the evolution of asexuality. We used 416 bp of the mitochondrial COI gene to infer phylogenetic relationships of virtually all known Timema walkingstick species, including extensive intraspecific sampling for all five of the asexuals and their close sexual relatives. The asexuals T. douglasi and T. shepardii were very closely related to each other and evolutionarily young (less than 0.5 million years old). For the asexuals T. monikensis and T. tahoe, evidence for antiquity was weak since only one population of each was sampled, intraspecific divergences were low, and genetic distances to related sexuals were high: maximum-likelihood molecular-clock age estimates ranged from 0.26 to 2.39 million years in T. monikensis and from 0.29-1.06 million years in T. tahoe. By contrast, T. genevieve was inferred to be an ancient asexual, with an age of 0.81 to 1.42 million years. The main correlate of the age of asexual lineages was their geographic position, with younger asexuals being found further north.

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 score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations48
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207