MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6948446422 · doi:10.5061/dryad.9ghx3ffhb

Hybridization and the coexistence of species: HZAM-Sym code and data files

2021· dataset· en· W6948446422 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicWood and Agarwood Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssortative matingSympatric speciationReproductive isolationMatingPopulationExtinction (optical mineralogy)HybridMating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is thought that two species can coexist if they use different resources present in the environment, yet this assumes that species are completely reproductively isolated. We model coexistence outcomes for two sympatric species that are ecologically differentiated but have incomplete reproductive isolation. The consequences of interbreeding depend crucially on hybrid fitness. When hybrid fitness is high, just a small rate of hybridization can lead to collapse of two species into one. Low hybrid fitness can cause population declines, making extinction of one or both species likely. High intrinsic growth rates result in higher reproductive rates when populations are below carrying capacity, reducing the probability of extinction and increasing the probability of stable coexistence at moderate levels of assortative mating and hybrid fitness. Very strong but incomplete assortative mating can induce low hybrid fitness via a mating disadvantage to rare genotypes, and this can stabilize coexistence of two species at high but incomplete levels of assortative mating. Given these results and evidence that it may take many millions of years of divergence before related species become sympatric, we postulate that coexistence of closely-related species is more often limited by insufficient assortative mating than by insufficient ecological differentiation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADSame topicWood and Agarwood ResearchFrench-language works237,207