MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Asymmetric Inheritance: The Diversity and Evolution of Non-Mendelian Reproductive Strategies

2022· article· en· W4288707409 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Ross, Andrew J. Mongue, Christina N. Hodson, Tanja Schwander

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsBiologyMendelian inheritanceNon-Mendelian inheritancePloidyGeneticsEvolutionary biologyOffspringGenomeInheritance (genetic algorithm)ReproductionMeiosisOrganismGeneMitochondrial DNAPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to reproduce is the key trait that distinguishes living organisms from inorganic matter, and the strategies used to achieve successful reproduction are almost as diverse as the organisms themselves. In animals, the most widespread form of reproduction involves separate male and female sexes: Each sex produces haploid gametes via meiosis, and two gametes fuse to form a new diploid organism. In some cases, both parents contribute equally to the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of their offspring. However, such fully symmetric reproduction of both parents represents the extreme end of a continuum toward complete asymmetry, where offspring inherit their nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes from only one of the two parents. Asymmetries also occur with respect to the fate of maternally and paternally inherited genomes and which sex is affected by non-Mendelian inheritance. In this review, we describe the diversity of animal reproductive systems along different axes with a symmetry–asymmetry continuum and suggest evolutionary routes that may have led to increased levels of asymmetry.

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)0.001
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 score0.190
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations28
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Ecology Evolution and SystematicsSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207