The Impact of Natural Selection on the Genome: Emerging Patterns in <i>Drosophila</i> and <i>Arabidopsis</i>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species in the Drosophila and Arabidopsis species groups share the feature of having relatively small, streamlined genomes. In Drosophila, evidence for pervasive negative and positive selection is overturning long-held views about the functional significance of noncoding DNA, the frequency of positive selection, and the extent to which coding and noncoding polymorphism and divergence between species is neutral. However, despite sharing some similarities with Drosophila, Arabidopsis shows quite distinct patterns of selective constraint and positive selection. Two conspicuous differences between these species groups are their effective population sizes and population structure, which may explain lower levels of selective constraint in coding and noncoding DNA of Arabidopsis, more evidence for balancing selection and less evidence for canonical signature of positive selection than in Drosophila species. As more comparative genomic data accumulate in the Arabidopsis group, the combination of polymorphism and divergence data allow these initial contrasts to be quantified on a genomic scale.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it