MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101201549 · doi:10.1534/genetics.112.146258

The Effect of Nonindependent Mate Pairing on the Effective Population Size

2012· article· en· W2101201549 on OpenAlexaff
Ben J. Evans, Brian Charlesworth

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of Edinburgh
KeywordsPairingBiologyGeneticsPopulation sizePopulationEffective population sizeEvolutionary biologyDemographyPhysicsGeneGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effective population size (N(e)) quantifies the effectiveness of genetic drift in finite populations. When generations overlap, theoretical expectations for N(e) typically assume that the sampling of offspring genotypes from a given individual is independent among successive breeding events, even though this is not true in many species, including humans. To explore the effects on N(e) of nonindependent mate pairing across breeding events, we simulated the genetic drift of mitochondrial DNA, autosomal DNA, and sex chromosome DNA under three mating systems. Nonindependent mate pairing across breeding seasons has no effect when all adults mate pair for life, a small or moderate effect when females reuse stored sperm, and a large effect when there is intense male-male competition for reproduction in a harem social system. If adult females reproduce at a constant rate irrespective of the type of mate pairing, the general effect of nonindependent mate pairing is to decrease N(e) for paternally inherited components of the genome. These findings have significant implications for the relative N(e) values of different genomic regions, and hence for the expected levels of DNA sequence diversity in these regions.

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)0.001
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207