MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107482652 · doi:10.1139/g05-012

Chromosomal phylogeny and geographical divergence in the<i>Drosophila bipectinata</i>complex

2005· article· en· W2107482652 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yoshihiko Tomimura, Muneo Matsuda, Yoshiko N. Tobari

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect behavior and control techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySubspeciesDrosophila (subgenus)Polytene chromosomeEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsSpecies complexChromosomal inversionGenePhylogenetic treeGeneticsZoologyDrosophila melanogasterKaryotypeChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have prepared reference polytene photographic maps as a standard sequence for the Drosophila bipectinata complex using structurally homozygous flies derived from a stock of Drosophila parabipectinata from Brunei, Borneo, in 1971. We found 87 inversions in the D. bipectinata complex and described their breakpoints on the reference maps. Only 2 arrangements were shared interspecifically: 2R-AB was shared with 3 species, D. parabipectinata, D. bipectinata, and Drosophila malerkotliana, and 3L-A was found in 2 species, D. parabipectinata and D. malerkotliana. The 2 subspecies of D. malerkotliana and the 2 subspecies of Drosophila pseudoananassae shared half of the total gene arrangements detected in each species. The number of different inversions found between species in the complex ranges from 7 (between D. parabipectinata and D. malerkotliana) to at least 24 (between D. bipectinata and D. pseudoananassae). On the basis of the characteristic differences of their gene arrangements, we propose a reliable chromosomal phylogeny of the D. bipectinata complex.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations19
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicInsect behavior and control techniquesFrench-language works237,207