It's About Time: Divergence, Demography, and the Evolution of Developmental Modes in Marine Invertebrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in larval developmental mode are predicted to affect ecological and evolutionary processes ranging from gene flow and population bottlenecks to rates of population recovery from anthropogenic disturbance and capacity for local adaptation. The most powerful tests of these predictions use comparisons among species to ask how phylogeographic patterns are correlated with the evolution and loss of prolonged planktonic larval development. An important and largely untested assumption of these studies is that interspecific differences in population genetic structure are mainly caused by differences in dispersal and gene flow (rather than by differences in divergence times among populations or changes in effective population sizes), and that species with similar patterns of spatial genetic variation have similar underlying temporal demographic histories. Teasing apart these temporal and spatial patterns is important for understanding the causes and consequences of evolutionary changes in larval developmental mode. New analytical methods that use the coalescent history of allelic diversity can reveal these temporal patterns, test the strength of traditional population-genetic explanations for variation in spatial structure based on differences in dispersal, and identify strongly supported alternative explanations for spatial structure based on demographic history rather than on gene flow alone. We briefly review some of these recent analytical developments, and show their potential for refining ideas about the correspondence between the evolution of larval developmental mode, population demographic history, and spatial genetic variation.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".