MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338671581 · doi:10.1139/gen-2015-0206

Patterns of genome size variation in snapping shrimp

2016· article· en· W2338671581 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Nicholas W. Jeffery, Kristin M. Hultgren, Solomon T. C. Chak, T. Ryan Gregory, Dustin R. Rubenstein

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSmithsonian Tropical Research InstituteSmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGenome sizeBiologyGenomePolyploidEvolutionary biologyIntraspecific competitionGenome evolutionGene densityChromosomeGeneticsGeneZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although crustaceans vary extensively in genome size, little is known about how genome size may affect the ecology and evolution of species in this diverse group, in part due to the lack of large genome size datasets. Here we investigate interspecific, intraspecific, and intracolony variation in genome size in 39 species of Synalpheus shrimps, representing one of the largest genome size datasets for a single genus within crustaceans. We find that genome size ranges approximately 4-fold across Synalpheus with little phylogenetic signal, and is not related to body size. In a subset of these species, genome size is related to chromosome size, but not to chromosome number, suggesting that despite large genomes, these species are not polyploid. Interestingly, there appears to be 35% intraspecific genome size variation in Synalpheus idios among geographic regions, and up to 30% variation in Synalpheus duffyi genome size within the same colony.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicAquaculture Nutrition and GrowthFrench-language works237,207