Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparing chromosomal gene order in two or more related species is an important approach to studying the forces that guide genome organization and evolution. Linked clusters of similar genes found in related genomes are often used to support arguments of evolutionary relatedness or functional selection. However, as the gene order and the gene complement of sister genomes diverge progressively due to large scale rearrangements, horizontal gene transfer, gene duplication and gene loss, it becomes increasingly difficult to determine whether observed similarities in local genomic structure are indeed remnants of common ancestral gene order, or are merely coincidences. A rigorous comparative genomics requires principled methods for distinguishing chance commonalities, within or between genomes, from genuine historical or functional relationships. In this paper, we construct tests for significant groupings against null hypotheses of random gene order, taking incomplete clusters, multiple genomes, and gene families into account. We consider both the significance of individual clusters of prespecified genes and the overall degree of clustering in whole genomes.
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 | 0.034 | 0.246 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".