MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315436975 · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpac005

G-matrix stability in clinally diverging populations of an annual weed

2022· article· en· W4315436975 on OpenAlexafffund
Georgia A Henry, John R. Stinchcombe

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyGenetic architectureGenetic divergenceRange (aeronautics)Evolutionary biologyTraitDivergence (linguistics)Genetic driftGenetic variationPopulationQuantitative trait locusEcologyGenetic diversityGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How phenotypic and genetic divergence among populations is influenced by the genetic architecture of those traits, and how microevolutionary changes in turn affect the within-population patterns of genetic variation, are of major interest to evolutionary biology. Work on Ipomoea hederacea, an annual vine, has found genetic clines in the means of a suite of ecologically important traits, including flowering time, growth rate, seed mass, and corolla width. Here we investigate the genetic (co)variances of these clinally varying traits in two northern range-edge and two central populations of I. hederacea to evaluate the influence of the genetic architecture on divergence across the range. We find (1) limited evidence for clear differentiation between Northern and Southern populations in the structure of G, suggesting overall stability of G across the range despite mean trait divergence and (2) that the axes of greatest variation (gmax) were unaligned with the axis of greatest multivariate divergence. Together these results indicate the role of the quantitative genetic architecture in constraining evolutionary response and divergence among populations across the geographic range.

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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207