MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025893779 · doi:10.1086/653672

Ecological Determinants of Mutation Load and Inbreeding Depression in Subdivided Populations

2010· article· en· W2025893779 on OpenAlexaff
Aneil F. Agrawal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic loadInbreeding depressionSelection (genetic algorithm)BiologyCompetition (biology)InbreedingInterspecific competitionEvolutionary biologyEcologyMutation ratePopulationMutationGeneticsGeneDemographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population structure can dramatically alter mutation load, but the magnitude and direction of this effect depend on whether selection is soft or hard. The abstract nature of previous load models obscured the importance of ecological details in determining the softness of selection. Under the more ecologically explicit model used here, I show that genes related to intrinsic growth rate tend to experience hard selection whereas those genes affecting competitive ability experience softer selection. Although resource limitation determines the strength of selection on competitive ability, it only affects the softness of selection, and thus the load, of mutations with pleiotropic effects on intrinsic growth rate. While competition is typically considered necessary for soft selection, the model shows that interspecific competition hardens selection and can thereby lead to reduced load. Finally, genetic variation in the consumption rates of individuals who die before reproduction can cause supersoft selection, resulting in large increases in load. The same conditions that increase mutation load also increase inbreeding depression.

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 score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations32
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207