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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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