MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016609678 · doi:10.7554/elife.54462

The evolutionary history and genomics of European blackcap migration

2020· article· en· W3016609678 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kira E. Delmore, Juan Carlos Illera, Javier Pérez‐Tris, Gernot Segelbacher, Juan S. Lugo Ramos, Gillian Durieux, Jun Ishigohoka, Miriam Liedvogel

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsPopulation genomicsBiologyEvolutionary biologyGenomicsGenomeDemographic historyCopy-number variationGeneticsPopulationSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenetic variationGeneGenotypeDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal migration is a taxonomically widespread behaviour that integrates across many traits. The European blackcap exhibits enormous variation in migration and is renowned for research on its evolution and genetic basis. We assembled a reference genome for blackcaps and obtained whole genome resequencing data from individuals across its breeding range. Analyses of population structure and demography suggested divergence began ~30,000 ya, with evidence for one admixture event between migrant and resident continent birds ~5000 ya. The propensity to migrate, orientation and distance of migration all map to a small number of genomic regions that do not overlap with results from other species, suggesting that there are multiple ways to generate variation in migration. Strongly associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were located in regulatory regions of candidate genes that may serve as major regulators of the migratory syndrome. Evidence for selection on shared variation was documented, providing a mechanism by which rapid changes may evolve.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations112
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207