MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320013506 · doi:10.1086/681717

Evolution of Quantitative Traits under a Migration-Selection Balance: When Does Skew Matter?

2015· article· en· W2320013506 on OpenAlexafffund
Florence Débarre, Sam Yeaman, Frédéric Guillaume

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGenome British ColumbiaWissenschaftskolleg zu BerlinWestern Canada Research GridGenome CanadaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSkewSelection (genetic algorithm)Stabilizing selectionDivergence (linguistics)GaussianPopulationBalance (ability)BiologyDistribution (mathematics)Statistical physicsStatisticsEvolutionary biologyEconometricsMathematicsComputer scienceNatural selectionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative-genetic models of differentiation under migration-selection balance often rely on the assumption of normally distributed genotypic and phenotypic values. When a population is subdivided into demes with selection toward different local optima, migration between demes may result in asymmetric, or skewed, local distributions. Using a simplified two-habitat model, we derive formulas without a priori assuming a Gaussian distribution of genotypic values, and we find expressions that naturally incorporate higher moments, such as skew. These formulas yield predictions of the expected divergence under migration-selection balance that are more accurate than models assuming Gaussian distributions, which illustrates the importance of incorporating these higher moments to assess the response to selection in heterogeneous environments. We further show with simulations that traits with loci of large effect display the largest skew in their distribution at migration-selection balance.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207