MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409560112 · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpaf078

Evaluating the roles of drift and selection in trait loss along an elevational gradient

2025· article· en· W4409560112 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia F. Buysse, Samuel G. Pérez, Joshua R. Puzey, Ava Garrison, Gideon S. Bradburd, Christopher G. Oakley, Stephen J. Tonsor, F. Xavier Picó, Emily B. Josephs, Jeffrey K. Conner

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyTraitSelection (genetic algorithm)Genetic driftEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGenetic variationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traits that have lost function sometimes persist through evolutionary time. Persistence may occur if there is not enough standing genetic variation for the trait to allow a response to selection, if selection against the trait is weak relative to drift, or if the trait has a residual function. To determine the evolutionary processes shaping whether nonfunctional traits are retained or lost, we investigated short stamens in 16 populations of Arabidopsis thaliana along an elevational cline in northeast Spain. A. thaliana is highly self-pollinating and prior work suggests short stamens do not contribute to self-pollination. We found a cline in short stamen number from retention of short stamens in high-elevation populations to incomplete loss in low-elevation populations. We did not find evidence that limited genetic variation constrains short stamen loss at high elevations, nor evidence for divergent selection on short stamens between high and low elevations. Finally, we identified loci associated with short stamens in northeast Spain that are different from loci associated with variation in short stamens across latitudes from a previous study. Overall, we did not identify the evolutionary mechanisms contributing to an elevational cline in short stamen number so further research is clearly warranted.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207