Analysis of Y‐chromosome Variability and its Comparison with mtDNA Variability Reveals Different Demographic Histories Between Islands in the Azores Archipelago (Portugal)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We determined the Y‐chromosomal composition of the population of the Azores Islands (Portugal), by analyzing 20 binary polymorphisms located in the non‐recombining portion of the Y‐chromosome (NRY), in 185 unrelated individuals from the three groups of islands forming the Archipelago (Eastern, Central and Western). Similar to that described for other Portuguese samples, the most frequent haplogroups were R1(xR1b3f) (55.1%), E(xE3a) (13%) and J (8.6%). Principal components analysis revealed a Western European profile for the Azorean population. No significant differences between Azores and mainland Portugal were observed. However, the haplogroup distribution across the three groups of islands was not similar (P<0.003). The Western group presented differences in the frequencies of haplogroups R1, E(xE3a) and I1b2 (27.3%, 22.7% and 13.6%, respectively) when compared to the other two groups. An assessment of the NRY variability, and its comparison with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variability, was further evidence of the differential composition of males during the settlement of the three groups of islands, contrary to what has been previously deduced for the female settlers using mtDNA data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".