MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765782410 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1710770114

Epigenetic mechanisms modulate differences in <i>Drosophila</i> foraging behavior

2017· article· en· W2765782410 on OpenAlexafffund
Ina Anreiter, Jamie M. Kramer, Marla B. Sokolowski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsEpigeneticsForagingBiologyVariation (astronomy)Mechanism (biology)EpigenesisEvolutionary biologyGenetic variationGeneticsRegulation of gene expressionNeuroscienceGeneGene expressionDNA methylationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significance Individuals of the same species display remarkable variation in behavior even in identical contexts, but the molecular mechanisms that underlie this variation are still poorly understood. Here we present important findings on the regulation of behavioral variation. We show that epigenetic regulation interacts with genetic variation, and provide causal evidence that this mechanism underlies distinct foraging behavioral strategies. More globally, our findings show that individuals within a species may behave differently due to the epigenetic control of gene expression.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations81
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207