Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hallmark of many sex chromosomes is the dramatically reduced rate of recombination between them in the heterogametic sex (e.g. between the X and Y). Sexually antagonistic selection is thought to be the main selective driver of this reduced recombination, with tighter linkage strengthening the association between alleles favourable to females and the X, as well as alleles favourable to males and the Y. Nevertheless, many sex chromosomes retain substantial levels of recombination over millions of years, and some old sex chromosomes remain homomorphic with few signs of recombination suppression and the chromosomal degradation expected to follow. This paper explores the selective factors that can maintain recombination between the sex chromosomes. Specifically, by analysing the dynamics of genes that modify the rate of recombination, I present results demonstrating that certain forms of selection - all involving overdominance in males - can positively maintain recombination in the pseudo-autosomal region. To understand these cases, one has to revise our standard view of sexual antagonistic selection as involving two partners (males and females) to three partners (the X in females, the X in males and the Y).
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".