Unexpected differences in the population genetics of phasmavirids (Bunyavirales) from subarctic ponds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
or NOMV) with zooplanktonic hosts from subarctic ponds. We expected weak genetic structure among populations as the hosts (phantom midges) have a terrestrial winged dispersal stage. To test whether their respective viruses mirror this structure, we collected and analyzed population datasets from 21 subarctic freshwater ponds and obtained sequences from all four genes in the viral genomes. Prevalence averaged 66 per cent for 514 host specimens and was not significantly different between recently formed thaw ponds and glacial ponds. Unexpectedly, KIGV from older ponds showed pronounced haplotype divergence with little evidence of genetic connectivity. However, KIGV populations from recent thaw ponds appeared to be represented by a closely related haplotype group, perhaps indicating a genotypic dispersal bias. Unlike KIGV, NOMV had modest structure and diversity in recently formed thaw ponds. For each virus, we found elevated genetic diversity relative to the host, but similar population structures to the host. Our results suggest that non-random processes such as virus-host interactions, genotypic bias, and habitat effects differ among polar aquatic RNA viruses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".