MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746071075 · doi:10.1111/evo.13331

Digest: Premating barriers drive reproductive isolation between two damselfly species*

2017· letter· en· W2746071075 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua Isaacson

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2017
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyReproductive isolationMatingDamselflyGenetic algorithmZoologyEvolutionary biologyEcologyPopulationOdonata

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under the biological species concept, speciation occurs when two populations become reproductively isolated from each other (Mayr 1942). Reproductive barriers can be broadly distinguished into two classes: premating barriers, which prevent mating between different species, and postmating barriers, which prevent fertilization or the production of viable or fertile hybrid offspring. The “lock-and-key” hypothesis states that differences in genital morphology between two species will prevent successful mating. This can occur in two ways: mechanical incompatibility between the genitalia of different species, and mismatches in tactile mechanisms, where inappropriate genital morphology produces sensory information that elicits a negative response in one or both sexes (reviewed in Masly 2012). For example, some species of damselflies cannot form the required mating position with heterospecifics because of incompatible reproductive structures (Sánchez-Guillén et al. 2012, Paulson 1974), and Drosophila males lick and tap female genitalia to gain pheromone information and evaluate potential mates (reviewed in Ebbs and Amrein 2007).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0170.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.013

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207