MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117615370 · doi:10.1666/05026.1

Inferring natural selection in a fossil threespine stickleback

2006· article· en· W2117615370 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Bell, Matthew P. Travis, D. M. Blouw

Bibliographic record

VenuePaleobiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersEarthwatch Institute
KeywordsSticklebackGasterosteusNatural selectionFossil RecordSelection (genetic algorithm)Natural (archaeology)Lineage (genetic)PaleontologyTaphonomyFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyEvolutionary biologyDirectional selectionStabilizing selectionGeologyFisheryComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inferring the causes for change in the fossil record has been a persistent problem in evolutionary biology. Three independent lines of evidence indicate that a lineage of the fossil stickleback fish Gasterosteus doryssus experienced directional natural selection for reduction of armor. Nonetheless, application to this lineage of three methods to infer natural selection in the fossil record could not exclude random process as the cause for armor change. Excluding stabilizing selection and genetic drift as the mechanisms for biostratigraphic patterns in the fossil record when directional natural selection was the actual cause is very difficult. Biostratigraphic sequences with extremely fine temporal resolution among samples and other favorable properties must be used to infer directional selection in the fossil record.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations90
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaleobiologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207