A comparative analysis of fine-scale genetic structure in three closely related syntopic species of the grasshopper genus<i>Calliptamus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landscape analysis and genetics can allow a better understanding of grasshoppers for which ecology is not very well known. We analysed landscape changes between 1990 and 2006 at two areas from southern France where three grasshopper species ( Calliptamus italicus (L., 1758), Calliptamus wattenwylianus Pantel, 1896, and Calliptamus barbarus (Costa, 1836)) occur. We then applied microsatellite markers to the study of 1200 georeferenced samples collected over both areas. We used a recent Bayesian clustering method with correlated allele frequencies to detect weak population genetic structure. We found evidence of breaks in gene flow only in C. wattenwylianus, thought to be sedentary relative to its congenerics. By using different allele frequency models and prior information to different levels of genetic differentiation for our six real data sets, our study also informs on the ability of the newly available Bayesian clustering methods model to detect weak genetic structure in natural field populations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".