Genotyping on the ark: A synthesis of genetic resources available for species in zoos
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using molecular genetic information to guide population management can improve the sustainability of species in captivity. However, empirical population genetics has not been commonly applied to species management programs in zoos. One limitation may be the availability of genetic resources (e.g., markers, primers, etc.) for species held in zoos. To assess the extent to which species held in zoos have been studied using population genetics in the wild, we conducted a systematic literature review of close to 8,000 papers. We synthesized information on the availability and scale of population genetics studies across amphibian, bird, mammal, and reptile species held in zoos, and discussed their potential for informing ex situ management. We found that more than half of the species in zoos (52%) already have some genetic markers described in the literature specific for them, or a congeneric species, that could be further developed to aid the management of zoo populations, and the accumulation of these resources has been steady over the past decades. Furthermore, the proportion of species with genetic resources is even higher (62%) for species that are being managed through a formal breeding program in zoos. Our study provides encouraging results for captive program managers interested in integrating population genetics into ex situ management strategies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it