MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029048702 · doi:10.1086/593305

Genomic Imprinting and Sex Allocation

2008· article· en· W2029048702 on OpenAlexaff
Geoff Wild, Stuart A. West

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsBiologyHaplodiploidyGenomic imprintingAlleleOffspringImprinting (psychology)GeneticsSex ratioEvolutionary biologyParent–offspring conflictGenePopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic imprinting allows maternally and paternally derived alleles to have different patterns of expression (one allele is often silent). Kin selection provides an explanation of genomic imprinting because conflicts of interest can arise between paternally and maternally inherited alleles when they have different probabilities of being present in other individuals. Our aim here is to examine the extent to which conflicts between paternally and maternally inherited alleles could arise over the allocation of resources to male and female reproduction (sex allocation), for example, conflict over the offspring sex ratio. We examine the situations in which sex allocation is influenced by competitive or cooperative interactions between relatives: local resource competition, local mate competition, and local resource enhancement. We determine solutions for diploids and haplodiploids when either the mother or the offspring controls sex allocation. Our results suggest that the greatest conflict between paternally and maternally inherited alleles and therefore the strongest selection for genomic imprinting will occur in haplodiploid species where the offspring can control sex allocation, such as the social hymenoptera and the polyembryonic parasitoid wasps. Within the social hymenoptera, we expect especially strong selection for genomic imprinting in species subject to local resource competition, such as honeybees and army ants.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.840
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations46
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207