MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE ECOLOGY AND GENETICS OF FITNESS IN CHLAMYDOMONAS. X. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENETIC CORRELATION AND GENETIC DISTANCE

2000· article· en· W2098186604 on OpenAlexafffund
Rees Kassen, Graham Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGenetic variationRange (aeronautics)Selection (genetic algorithm)Genetic distanceEvolutionary biologyGenetic correlationGenetic variabilityQuantitative geneticsEcologyGenotypeGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A necessary condition for the maintenance of genetic variation in heterogeneous environments is that the relative fitnesses of a collection of genotypes vary as conditions of growth change. This can be detected by estimating the amount of gene-by-environment interaction (G x E) when a range of types are tested across a range of conditions. However it is the sign and magnitude of the genetic correlation, which is a component of G x E, that governs the ultimate fate of variation. Whether genetic variation will be preserved, then, depends on how the genetic correlation changes as a function of the ecological differences among environments and the genetic differences among genotypes. To evaluate this, we assayed the performance of 15 chlorophyte species of known genetic relation in 20 environments. We found that the quantity of G x E increased as both the environmental variance across environments and the genetic distance increased. Moreover the genetic correlation declined as the environmental variance between pairs of environments and the genetic distance between pairs of genotypes increased. These results suggest that divergent selection will be more likely to maintain genetic variation when environments are strongly contrasted and genotypes widely divergent.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations28
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207