MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165194519 · doi:10.1093/jhered/esg072

Parentage and Relatedness in Polyandrous Comb-Crested Jacanas Using ISSRs

2003· article· en· W2165194519 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Susan M. Haig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsBiologyBiological dispersalZoologyPopulationEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we present the first analysis of parentage and relatedness in a natural vertebrate population, using Intersimple Sequence Repeat (ISSR) markers. Thus, 28 ISSR markers were used in a study of a sex-role reversed, simultaneously polyandrous shorebird from northeastern Australia, the comb-crested jacana (Irediparra gallinacea). Assessment of parentage was based on comparison of field observations, novel bands, individual-specific bands found in 7/9 males and 4/6 females, and a 99% CI exclusion criteria. Integrating results from these approaches resulted in confirmation of paternity in all 36 chicks. In only one case (2.8% of chicks) was a co-mate assigned paternity. Thus, comb-crested jacanas appear to be genetically monogamous. These results showed resemblance to sequentially polyandrous birds but differed from the simultaneously polyandrous wattled jacana ( Jacana jacana; Emlen et al. 1998). A significant relationship between relatedness and ISSR similarity resulted in recognition that 14/15 adults sampled may be related to at least one other adult by 0.25 or more. Lack of dispersal may be explained by physical limitations and adequate regional habitat. ISSRs proved to be simple and helpful in resolving these issues.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HereditySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207