Archaic Lineages in the History of Modern Humans
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important question in the ongoing debate on the origin of Homo sapiens is whether modern human populations issued from a single lineage or whether several, independently evolving lineages contributed to their genetic makeup. We analyzed haplotypes composed of 35 polymorphisms from a segment of the dystrophin gene. We find that the bulk of a worldwide sample of 868 chromosomes represents haplotypes shared by different continental groups. The remaining chromosomes carry haplotypes specific for the continents or for local populations. The haplotypes specific for non-Africans can be derived from the most frequent ones through simple recombination or a mutation. In contrast, chromosomes specific for sub-Saharan Africans represent a distinct group, as shown by principal component analysis, maximum likelihood tree, structural comparison, and summary statistics. We propose that African chromosomes descend from at least two lineages that have been evolving separately for a period of time. One of them underwent range expansion colonizing different continents, including Africa, where it mixed with another, local lineage represented today by a large fraction of African-specific haplotypes. Genetic admixture involving archaic lineages appears therefore to have occurred within Africa rather than outside this continent, explaining greater diversity of sub-Saharan populations observed in a variety of genetic systems.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it