MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6892197726 · doi:10.5061/dryad.167d5

Data from: Sex-specific graphs: Relating group-specific topology to demographic and landscape data

2017· dataset· en· W6892197726 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2017
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetapopulationBiological dispersalNetwork topologyPopulationTopology (electrical circuits)GraphLimitingPartition (number theory)Vertebrate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sex-specific genetic structure is a commonly observed pattern among vertebrate species. Facing differential selective pressures, individuals may adopt sex-specific life history traits that ultimately shape genetic variation among populations. Although differential dispersal dynamics are commonly detected in the literature, few studies have used genetic structure to investigate sex-specific functional connectivity. The recent use of graph theoretic approaches in landscape genetics has demonstrated network capacities to describe complex system behaviours where network topology represents genetic interaction among subunits. Here, we partition the overall genetic structure into sex-specific graphs, revealing different male and female dispersal dynamics of a fisher (Pekania [Martes] pennanti) metapopulation in southern Ontario. Our analyses based on network topologies supported the hypothesis of male-biased dispersal. Furthermore, we demonstrated that the effect of the landscape, identified at the population level, could be partitioned among sex-specific strata. We found that female connectivity was negatively correlated with snow depth, whereas connectivity among males was not. Our findings underscore the potential of conducting sex-specific analysis by identifying landscape elements or configuration that differentially promotes or impedes functional connectivity between sexes, revealing processes that may otherwise remain cryptic. We propose that the sex-specific graph approach would be applicable to other vagile species where differential sex-specific processes are expected to occur.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesOpen science
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0270.040
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.240 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207