MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040190949 · doi:10.1086/599082

Spatial Heterogeneity and the Evolution of Sex in Diploids

2009· article· en· W2040190949 on OpenAlexafffund
Aneil F. Agrawal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRecombinationBiologyEvolution of sexual reproductionEvolutionary biologyInbreedingSelection (genetic algorithm)Genetic recombinationSexual reproductionExperimental evolutionSexual selectionGeneticsPopulationGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of the theoretical work on the evolution of sex has focused on the effects of recombination. In diploids, segregation also occurs during sexual reproduction. Segregation breaks down some types of genetic associations that are not affected by recombination and thus influences the evolution of sex in ways that are not apparent from studying the evolution of recombination as a surrogate for sex. Here I examine the evolution of sex in diploids experiencing spatially heterogeneous selection. If divergent selection causes genetic differentiation, then migration can be a powerful force generating genetic associations that may not be favored by selection. An advantage to sex can arise from breaking down these associations. By examining modifiers of both sex and recombination, the model allows for a direct comparison of the forces acting on these related but different processes, illuminating the role of segregation. The model also includes inbreeding, which has been shown to be important for both segregation and recombination. I find that inbreeding affects the evolution of sex through segregation, not recombination. Several suggestions for empirical experiments are given.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations56
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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