Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sex chromosomes in plants have often been contrasted with those in animals with the goal of identifying key differences that can be used to elucidate fundamental evolutionary properties. For example, the often homomorphic sex chromosomes in plants have been compared to the highly divergent systems in some animal model systems, such as birds, Drosophila and therian mammals, with many hypotheses offered to explain the apparent dissimilarities, including the younger age of plant sex chromosomes, the lesser prevalence of sexual dimorphism, or the greater extent of haploid selection. Furthermore, many plant sex chromosomes lack complete sex chromosome dosage compensation observed in some animals, including therian mammals, Drosophila, some poeciliids, and Anolis, and plant dosage compensation, where it exists, appears to be incomplete. Even the canonical theoretical models of sex chromosome formation differ somewhat between plants and animals. However, the highly divergent sex chromosomes observed in some animal groups are actually the exception, not the norm, and many animal clades are far more similar to plants in their sex chromosome patterns. This begs the question of how different are plant and animal sex chromosomes, and which of the many unique properties of plants would be expected to affect sex chromosome evolution differently than animals? In fact, plant and animal sex chromosomes exhibit more similarities than differences, and it is not at all clear that they differ in terms of sexual conflict, dosage compensation, or even degree of divergence. Overall, the largest difference between these two groups is the greater potential for haploid selection in plants compared to animals. This may act to accelerate the expansion of the non-recombining region at the same time that it maintains gene function within it. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Sex determination and sex chromosome evolution in land plants’.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".