MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Causes and Consequences of Varying Transposable Element Activity: An Evolutionary Perspective

2024· review· en· W4394728234 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsTransposable elementBiologyEvolutionary biologyContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Biological evolutionEvolutionary dynamicsDNA Transposable ElementsGenomeGeneticsGenePopulationSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transposable elements (TEs) are genomic parasites found in nearly all eukaryotes, including humans. This evolutionary success of TEs is due to their replicative activity, involving insertion into new genomic locations. TE activity varies at multiple levels, from between taxa to within individuals. The rapidly accumulating evidence of the influence of TE activity on human health, as well as the rapid growth of new tools to study it, motivated an evaluation of what we know about TE activity thus far. Here, we discuss why TE activity varies, and the consequences of this variation, from an evolutionary perspective. By studying TE activity in nonhuman organisms in the context of evolutionary theories, we can shed light on the factors that affect TE activity. While the consequences of TE activity are usually deleterious, some have lasting evolutionary impacts by conferring benefits on the host or affecting other evolutionary processes.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.276 · 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