Parallel and non-parallel divergence within polymorphic populations of brook stickleback, Culaea inconstans (Actinopterygii: Gasterosteidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying parallel evolution allows us to draw conclusions about the repeatability of adaptive evolution. Whereas populations likely experience similar selective pressures in similar environments, it is not clear if this will always result in parallel divergence of ecologically relevant traits. Our study investigates the extent of parallelism associated with the evolution of pelvic spine reduction in brook stickleback populations. We find that populations with parallel divergence in pelvic spine morphology do not exhibit parallel divergence in head and body morphology but do exhibit parallel divergence in diet. In addition, we compare these patterns associated with pelvic reduction in brook stickleback to well-studied patterns of divergence between spined and unspined threespine stickleback. Whereas spine reduction is associated with littoral habitats and a benthic diet in threespine stickleback, spine reduction in brook stickleback is associated with a planktonic diet. Hence, we find that pelvic spine divergence is associated with largely non-parallel ecological consequences across species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".