MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146835552 · doi:10.1139/g06-049

The ripples of "The Big (agricultural) Bang": the spread of early wheat cultivation

2006· review· en· W2146835552 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shahal Abbo, Avi Gopher, Zvi Peleg, Yehoshua Saranga, Tzion Fahima, Francesco Salamini, Simcha Lev‐Yadun

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicForensic and Genetic Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomesticationAgricultureAncient DNAAgricultural revolutionBiologyEvolutionary biologyGeographyEcologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demographic expansion and (or) migrations leave their mark in the pattern of DNA polymorphisms of the respective populations. Likewise, the spread of cultural phenomena can be traced by dating archaeological finds and reconstructing their direction and pace. A similar course of events is likely to have taken place following the "Big Bang" of the agricultural spread in the Neolithic Near East from its core area in southeastern Turkey. Thus far, no attempts have been made to track the movement of the founder genetic stocks of the first crop plants from their core area based on the genetic structure of living plants. In this minireview, we re-interpret recent wheat DNA polymorphism data to detect the genetic ripples left by the early wave of advance of Neolithic wheat farming from its core area. This methodology may help to suggest a model charting the spread of the first farming phase prior to the emergence of truly domesticated wheat types (and other such crops), thereby increasing our resolution power in studying this revolutionary period of human cultural, demographic, and social evolution.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicForensic and Genetic ResearchFrench-language works237,207