Biased sex‐ratio and sex‐biased heterozygote disadvantage affect the maintenance of a genetic polymorphism and the properties of hybrid zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of biodiversity is a major issue of modern biology, and it is becoming increasingly topical as the ongoing erosion of diversity puts serious threats on human well-being. An elementary mechanism that allows maintaining diversity is the interplay between dispersal and heterozygote selective disadvantage, which can lead to self-sustainable spatial genetic structures and is central to the stability of hybrid zones. Theoretical studies supporting the importance of this mechanism assume a balanced sex-ratio and a heterozygote disadvantage equally affecting both sexes, despite the multiplicity of empirical evidence that (i) adult sex-ratio is usually biased towards either male or female and that (ii) heterozygote disadvantage often affects a single sex. We expanded the existing theory by weighting the strength of selection against heterozygote according to the biased in sex-ratio and in heterozygote disadvantage. The range of conditions allowing for the maintenance of polymorphism can then either double or vanish. We discuss the implications of such finding for birds, mammals and insects diversity. Finally, we provide simple analytical predictions about the effect of those biased on the width and speed of hybrid zones and on the time for the spread of beneficial mutations through such zones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".