MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2166873838 · doi:10.1086/342902

Genetic Tools for Studying Adaptation and the Evolution of Behavior

2002· article· en· W2166873838 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Evolutionary biologyBiologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid expansion of genomic and molecular genetic techniques in model organisms, and the application of these techniques to organisms that are less well studied genetically, make it possible to understand the genetic control of many behavioral phenotypes. However, many behavioral ecologists are uncertain about the value of including a genetic component in their studies. In this article, we review how genetic analyses of behavior are central to topics ranging from understanding past selection and predicting future evolution to explaining the neural and hormonal control of behavior. Furthermore, we review both new and old techniques for studying evolutionary behavior genetics and highlight how the choice of approach depends on both the question and the organism. Topics discussed include genetic architecture, detecting the past history of selection, and genotype-by-environment interactions. We show how these questions are being addressed with techniques including statistical genetics, QTL analyses, transgenic analyses, and microarrays. Many of the techniques were first applied to the behavior of genetic model organisms such as laboratory mice and flies. Two recent developments serve to expand the relevance of such studies to behavioral ecology. The first is to use model organisms for studies of the genetic basis of evolutionarily relevant behavior and the second is to apply methods developed in model genetic systems to species that have not previously been examined genetically. These conceptual advances, along with the rapid diversification of genetic tools and the recognition of widespread genetic homology, suggest a bright outlook for evolutionary genetic studies. This review provides access to tools through references to the recent literature and shows the great promise for evolutionary behavioral genetics.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.194 · 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