MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6892175798 · doi:10.5061/dryad.tht76hf50

Data from: Genomic signatures of adaptation in native lizards exposed to human-introduced fire ants

2023· dataset· en· W6892175798 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2023
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Cline (biology)PredationPopulationLizardEctothermLocal adaptation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the process of genetic adaptation in response to human-mediated ecological change will help elucidate the eco-evolutionary impacts of human activity. In the 1930s red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) were accidently introduced to the Southeastern USA, where today they are both venomous predators and toxic prey to native eastern fence lizards (Sceloporus undulatus). Here, we investigate potential lizard adaptation to invasive fire ants by generating whole-genome sequences from 420 lizards across three populations: one with long exposure to fire ants, and two unexposed populations. Signatures of positive selection exclusive to the exposed population overlap immune system, growth factor pathways, and morphological development genes. Among invaded lizards, longer limbs (used to remove stinging ants) are associated with increased survival. We identify alleles associated with longer limbs that are highly differentiated from the unexposed populations, a pattern counter to the pre-invasion latitudinal cline for limb lengths based on museum specimens. While we cannot rule out other environmental differences between populations driving these patterns, these results do constitute plausible genetic adaptations in lizards invaded by fire ants.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.007

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→French-language works237,207→