MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395225205 · doi:10.1111/bij.12832

Abrupt shortening of bird W chromosomes in ancestral Neognathae

2016· article· en· W2395225205 on OpenAlexafffund
Root Gorelick, Danielle Fraser, Melissa Mansfield, Jeff W. Dawson, Sanoji Wijenayake, Susan M. Bertram

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeterogametic sexBiologyExtant taxonRecombinationChromosomeEvolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeW chromosomeGeneticsEvolution of sexual reproductionZoologyKaryotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of suppressed recombination, heterogametic sex chromosomes (either Y or W) are usually assumed to gradually shorten over evolutionary time as a way to remove accumulated mutations. However, suppressed recombination removes the most obvious mechanism for excising portions of sex chromosomes. We examined ratios of W/Z chromosome size across 224 bird species from 146 genera. Much of the data were obtained from a previous study (Rutkowska et al. 2012. Biology Letters8: 636–638), who, similar to ourselves, found no gradual decrease in W chromosome length over evolutionary time. However, we show an abrupt decrease in W chromosome length at or just after the phylogenetic split between the two extant bird superorders, Paleognathae and Neognathae, indicating that the key to understanding sex chromosome evolution may have little to do with gradual suppression of recombination.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207