At the southeast fringe of the Bantu expansion: genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships to other sub-Saharan tribes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here, we present 12 loci paternal haplotypes (Y-STR profiles) against the backdrop of the Y-SNP marker system of Bantu males from the Maputo Province of Southeast Africa, a region believed to represent the southeastern fringe of the Bantu expansion. Our Maputo Bantu group was analyzed within the context of 27 geographically relevant reference populations in order to ascertain its genetic relationship to other Bantu and non Bantu (Pygmy, Khoisan and Nilotic) sub-equatorial tribes from West and East Africa. This study entails statistical pair wise comparisons and multidimensional scaling based on YSTR Rst distances, network analyses of Bantu (B2a-M150) and Pygmy (B2b-M112) lineages as well as an assessment of Y-SNP distribution patterns. Several notable findings include the following: 1) the Maputo Province Bantu exhibits a relatively close paternal affinity with both east and west Bantu tribes due to high proportion of Bantu Y chromosomal markers, 2) only traces of Khoisan (1.3%) and Pygmy (1.3%) markers persist in the Maputo Province Bantu gene pool, 3) the occurrence of R1a1a-M17/M198, a member of the Eurasian R1a-M420 branch in the population of the Maputo Province, may represent back migration events and/or recent admixture events, 4) the shared presence of E1b1b1-M35 in all Tanzanian tribes examined, including Bantu and non-Bantu groups, in conjunction with its nearly complete absence in the West African populations indicate that, in addition to a shared linguistic, cultural and genetic heritage, geography (e.g., east vs. west) may have impacted the paternal landscape of sub-Saharan Africa, 5) the admixture and assimilation processes of Bantu elements were both highly complex and region-specific.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".