MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905627470 · doi:10.1002/ece3.4803

Repurposing population genetics data to discern genomic architecture: A case study of linkage cohort detection in mountain pine beetle (<i>Dendroctonus ponderosae</i>)

2018· article· en· W2905627470 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stephen A. L. Trevoy, Jasmine K. Janes, Kevin Muirhead, Felix A. H. Sperling

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Environment - SaskatchewanAlberta Agriculture and ForestryCanadian Forest ServiceOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of AlbertaUniversité LavalWeyerhaeuser Company
KeywordsDendroctonusMountain pine beetleRepurposingBiologyPopulation geneticsLinkage (software)PopulationEvolutionary biologyEcologyGenomicsGeographyGeneticsGenomeBark beetleMedicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic surveys of the population structure of species can be used as resources for exploring their genomic architecture. By adjusting filtering assumptions, genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) datasets can be reused to give new insights into the genetic basis of divergence and speciation without targeted resampling of specimens. Filtering only for missing data and minor allele frequency, we used a combination of principal components analysis and linkage disequilibrium network analysis to distinguish three cohorts of variable SNPs in the mountain pine beetle in western Canada, including one that was sex-linked and one that was geographically associated. These marker cohorts indicate genomically localized differentiation, and their detection demonstrates an accessible and intuitive method for discovering potential islands of genomic divergence without a priori knowledge of a species' genomic architecture. Thus, this method has utility for directly addressing the genomic architecture of species and generating new hypotheses for functional research.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207