MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Historic and contemporary levels of genetic variation in two New Zealand passerines with different histories of decline

2007· article· en· W2104529433 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sabrina S. Taylor, Ian G. Jamieson, Graham P. Wallis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of OtagoSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsBiologyVariation (astronomy)Evolutionary biologyGenetic variationZoologyEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared historic and contemporary genetic variation in two threatened New Zealand birds (saddlebacks and robins) with disparate bottleneck histories. Saddlebacks showed massive loss of genetic variation when extirpated from the mainland, but no significant loss of variation following a severe bottleneck in the 1960s when the last population was reduced from approximately 1000 to 36 birds. Low genetic variation was probably characteristic of this isolated island population: considerably more genetic variation would exist in saddlebacks today if a mainland population had survived. In contrast to saddlebacks, contemporary robin populations showed only a small decrease in genetic variation compared with historical populations. Genetic variation in robins was probably maintained because of their superior ability to disperse and coexist with introduced predators. These results demonstrate that contemporary genetic variation may depend more greatly on the nature of the source population and its genetic past than it does on recent bottlenecks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.255
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations84
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207