MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Microsatellites reveal high levels of gene flow among populations of the California squid <i>Loligo opalescens</i>

2001· article· en· W2106835447 on OpenAlexaff
Denise Reichow, Michael J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityWashington State UniversityCalifornia Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsBiologyGene flowMicrosatelliteLoligoAllele frequencyAllelePopulationGenetic structureGenetic driftPopulation geneticsGeneticsSquidEvolutionary biologyGenetic variationEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information on the extent of genetic differentiation among populations of the squid Loligo opalescens is crucial for the conservation of this commercially utilized species. We analysed six highly variable microsatellite loci in 11 collections of L. opalescens from different locations and spawning seasons to estimate the relative influence of two major evolutionary forces, gene flow and genetic drift. Microsatellite allele frequency patterns suggest that gene flow prevents population differentiation in L. opalescens. Tests for genetic differentiation showed homogeneity of the samples with an overall FST/RST of 0.0028/-0.0013. Genetic uniformity among samples from different year classes indicates that allele frequency patterns in L. opalescens are relatively stable over time. However, a more complete and detailed picture of fine-scale allele frequency shifts in this species will require a systematic microsatellite analysis of local populations over consecutive spawning cycles.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations62
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207