MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2988928512 · doi:10.1101/838797

Sex identification of ancient pinnipeds using the dog genome

2019· preprint· en· W2988928512 on OpenAlexaff
Maiken Hemme Bro‐Jørgensen, Xénia Keighley, Hans Ahlgren, Camilla Hjorth Scharff‐Olsen, Aqqalu Rosing‐Asvid, Runé Dietz, Steven H. Ferguson, Anne Birgitte Gotfredsen, Peter Jordan, Aikaterini Glykou, Kerstin Lidén, Morten Tange Olsen

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersHorizon 2020Stiftelsen för Miljöstrategisk ForskningForschungszentrum JülichBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungInnovationsfondenEuropean Commission
KeywordsBiologyIdentification (biology)Evolutionary biologyMicrosatelliteZoologyEcologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Determining the male and female representation in zooarchaeological material from hunted animal species is essential, to fully investigate the effects and means of prehistoric hunting practices, and may further provide valuable biological information on past animal life-history, behaviour and demography. However, the fragmented nature of the zooarchaeological record and a lack of clear diagnostic skeletal markers, often prevents such inference. Here, we test the usability of the dog nuclear genome (CanFam3.1) for sex identification of pinnipeds. First, a contemporary sample set (n=72) of ringed seals ( Pusa hispida ), with known sex was used to test the genetic sex identification method. By quantifying the proportion of X chromosome reads, as the chrX/chr1 ratio, the ratios clustered in two clearly distinguishable sex groups. Of the 72 individuals, 69 were identified to the accurate sex, which proves a high reliability of the genetic method. Second, random down sampling of a subset of the ringed seal samples to different read number, suggests at least 5000 DNA sequence reads mapped to the reference genome as the lower limit for which this method is applicable. Finally, applying this standard, sex identification was successfully carried out on a broad set of ancient pinniped samples, including walruses ( Odobenus rosmarus ), grey seals ( Halichoerus grypus ) and harp seals ( Pagophilus groenlandicus) , which all showed clearly distinct male and female chrX/chr1 ratio 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 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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→