MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312081928 · doi:10.1093/ornithology/ukac060

Gradual transitions in genetics and songs between coastal and inland populations of <i>Setophaga townsendi</i>

2022· article· en· W4312081928 on OpenAlexafffund
Madelyn J. Ore, Silu Wang, Darren E. Irwin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCline (biology)BiologyEcologyReproductive isolationPopulationSongbirdWarblerGeographyPopulation geneticsEvolutionary biologyHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Setophaga townsendi is a species of wood warbler (family Parulidae) in northwestern North America that has geographic structure in the mitochondrial and nuclear genomes: while interior populations have differentiated mitonuclear ancestry from the sister species S. occidentalis, coastal populations have a mix of inland and S. occidentalis mitonuclear ancestries. This coastal to inland transition in genomic ancestry raises the possibility of similar geographic structure in phenotypic traits, especially those involved in mate choice. Using qualitative and multivariate approaches, we investigated whether there is a sharp transition between coastal and inland populations in both song and in nuclear DNA. We find there is a shallow geographic cline in Type I song but not in Type II song. Nuclear DNA shows a gradient between coast and inland. There is little correlation between variation in song and the isolation-by-distance pattern in the nuclear DNA. Learned songbird song is shaped by both genetic and cultural processes. There has been a debate on whether song learning promotes or slows down population differentiation. By comparing the within-species variation in song and genetic structures, we can expand our understanding of the dynamic interplay between mating signals and population differentiation.

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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207