MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164794009 · doi:10.1111/jav.02717

Introgression between <i>Sphyrapicus nuchalis</i> and <i>S. varius</i> sapsuckers in a hybrid zone in west‐central Alberta

2021· article· en· W3164794009 on OpenAlexaffabout
Libby Natola, Ashley Irene Joy Curtis, Jocelyn Hudon, Theresa M. Burg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alberta MuseumUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIntrogressionHybrid zoneHybridBackcrossingPlumageGenetic algorithmEcologyZoologyEvolutionary biologyGene flowGeneticsGeneGenetic variationBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studying species interactions at hybrid zones allows biologists to understand the forces that promote speciation. Hybridization among Sphyrapicus nuchalis , S. varius and S. ruber has long been acknowledged, and hybrid zones between S. nuchalis / S. ruber and S. varius / S. ruber have been characterized with both genetic and genomic data. Using a combination of next‐generation restriction site‐associated DNA sequencing (RAD‐Seq) and traditional genetic methods, we examined patterns of introgression in the poorly characterized S. nuchalis / S. varius contact zone; the two most similar species in the complex, though they are not each other's closest relatives. We found high introgression rates, with several early and many advanced generation hybrids along a 275 km stretch of Rocky Mountain foothill, pointing to a well‐established hybrid zone with hybrid individuals backcrossing with individuals from the parental species and each other. Plumage colouration in the hybrid zone was a relatively poor indicator of parental or hybrid status, which could be attributed to the possible involvement of few large effect genes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207