MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125493156 · doi:10.5539/jmbr.v5n1p1

New Advances Reconstructing the Y Chromosome Haplotype of Napoleon the First Based on Three of his Living Descendants

2014· article· en· W2125493156 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G Lucotte, Peter Hrechdakian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Biology Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicForensic and Genetic Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaplotypeAlleleGeneticsBiologyMicrosatellitePopulationY chromosomeDescendantChromosomeEvolutionary biologyGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the findings of the complete reconstruction of the lineage Y chromosome haplotype of the French Emperor Napoléon I. In a previous study (Lucotte et al., 2013) we reconstructed, for more than one hundred Y-STRs (Y–short tandem repeats), the Y-chromosome haplotype of Napoléon I based on data comparing STR allelic values obtained from the DNA of two of his living descendants: Charles Napoléon (C.N.) and Alexandre Colonna Walewski (A.C.W.); in the present study we compare STR allelic values of C.N. and A.C.W. to those of Mike Clovis (M.C.), a living fifth generation descendant of Lucien (one of Napoléon’s brothers). When compared between M.C., C.N. and A.C.W., STR allelic values are identical for a total of 93 STRs; that permits us to propose those values, for which the three living descendants are identical, as expected allelic values of Napoléon I’s Y-chromosome haplotype. For seven STRs, allele values are variable between M.C., C.N. and A.C.W.; we propose for three of them (DYS442, DYS454 and DYS712) expected allelic values, based on data concerning the allele distributions of these STRs in the population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular Biology ResearchSame topicForensic and Genetic ResearchFrench-language works237,207