Latitudinal variation in genome size in crustaceans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In animals, genome size is correlated with many traits that also vary with latitude, such as body size and developmental rate. Crustaceans have highly variable genome sizes (ranging nearly 650-fold), and some polar crustaceans have exceptionally large genomes. Here, we investigate whether genome size is positively correlated with latitude across 275 species of decapods, amphipods and copepods. We also test whether this relationship is independent of other factors that co-vary with genome size and latitude (body size, habitat and larval development) using phylogenetic generalized least-squares methods and model selection using Akaike's information criterion. In amphipods, all well-supported models explaining genome size included latitude, whereas in copepods the supported models included body size, but not latitude. In decapods, there was a significant correlation between genome size and number of larval stages; however, model testing indicated that no single factor was most well supported in explaining genome size correlations. Although genome size generally increases with latitude across crustaceans, it is clearly a complex trait that differs among taxonomic groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".