MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

OPPOSING LEVELS OF SELECTION CAN CAUSE NEUTRALITY: MATING PATTERNS AND MATERNAL-FETAL INTERACTIONS

2000· article· en· W4248334452 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michael J. Wade

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaSwedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education
KeywordsBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)MatingOffspringInbreedingEvolutionary biologyGeneticsPopulationBalancing selectionAlleleGeneDemographyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A biallelic viability model based on human data for maternal-fetal interactions reported by Hedrick (1997) gives the interesting result of neutral stability at all gene frequencies. I show that there are two levels of selection, within and among families, acting in opposing directions in this model and that the neutral stability occurs when the two levels of selection exactly balance one another, as they do in a randomly mating population. Deviations from random mating disrupt the balance and consequently destroy the neutral stability. However, with inbreeding avoidance, which characterizes the human histocompatibility loci, within-family selection is strengthened and among-family selection is weakened. This favors the invasion of new alleles and contributes to a high equilibrium level of genetic diversity at loci with maternal-fetal interactions affecting offspring viability in the pattern described by Hedrick. This pattern of selection is remarkably similar to that observed for the maternal effect selfish genes, Medea in flour beetles and scat in the mouse, and the Gp-9 gene in the fire ant.Corresponding Editor: T. Markow

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207