MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INTROGRESSION VERSUS IMMIGRATION IN HYBRIDIZING HIGH-DISPERSAL ECHINODERMS

2007· article· en· W2167368597 on OpenAlexafffund
Fiona M. Harper, Jason A. Addison, Michael W. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyIntrogressionBiological dispersalSympatric speciationGene flowEcologyEvolutionary biologyPopulationGenetic variationGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phylogeographic studies designed to estimate rates and patterns of genetic differentiation within species often reveal unexpected and graphically striking cases of allele or haplotype sharing between species (introgression) via hybridization and backcrossing. Does introgression between species significantly influence population genetic structure relative to more conventional sources of differentiation (drift) and similarity (dispersal) among populations within species? Here we use mtDNA sequences from four species in two genera of sea urchins and sea stars to quantify the relative magnitude of gene flow across oceans and across species boundaries in the context of the trans-Arctic interchange of marine organisms between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. In spite of the much smaller distances between sympatric congeners, rates of gene flow between sympatric species via heterospecific gamete interactions were small and significantly lower than gene flow across oceans via dispersal of planktonic larvae. We conclude that, in these cases at least, larvae are more effective than gametes as vectors of gene flow.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
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

Citations38
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicMarine and coastal plant biologyFrench-language works237,207