MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246447067 · doi:10.31730/osf.io/y3bp7

Hybridization in human evolution: insights from other organisms

2018· preprint· en· W4246447067 on OpenAlexaff
R. Ackermann, Michael Arnold, Marcella D. Baiz, James A. Cahill, Liliana Cortés‐Ortiz, Ben J. Evans, B. Rosemary Grant, Peter R. Grant, Benedikt Hallgrimsson, Robyn Humphreys, Clifford J. Jolly, Joanna Malukiewicz, Christopher J. Percival, Terrence B. Ritzman, Christian Roos, Charles C. Roseman, Lauren Schroeder, Fred H. Smith, Kerryn Warren, Robert K. Wayne, Dietmar Zinner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biologyContext (archaeology)Adaptation (eye)Variation (astronomy)Adaptive evolutionPhenotypeRange (aeronautics)Human evolutionDiversity (politics)Evolutionary dynamicsGeneGeneticsSociologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the late Pleistocene, isolated lineages of hominins exchanged genes thus influencing genomic variation in humans in both the past and present. However, the dynamics of this genetic exchange and associated phenotypic consequences through time remain poorly understood. Gene exchange across divergent lineages can result in myriad outcomes arising from these dynamics and the environmental conditions under which it occurs. Here we draw from our collective research across various organisms, illustrating some of the ways in which gene exchange can structure genomic/phenotypic diversity within/among species. We present a range of examples relevant to questions about the evolution of hominins. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive, but rather illustrative of the diverse evolutionary causes/consequences of hybridization, highlighting potential drivers of human evolution in the context of hybridization including: influences on adaptive evolution, climate change, developmental systems, sex-differences in behavior, Haldane’s rule and the large X-effect, and transgressive phenotypic variation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207