Data from: Population size is weakly related to quantitative genetic variation and trait differentiation in a stream fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How population size influences quantitative genetic variation and differentiation among natural, fragmented populations remains unresolved. Small, isolated populations might occupy poor quality habitats and lose genetic variation more rapidly due to genetic drift than large populations. Genetic drift might furthermore overcome selection as population size decreases. Collectively, this might result in directional changes in additive genetic variation (VA) and trait differentiation (QST) from small to large population size. Alternatively, small populations might exhibit larger variation in VA and QST if habitat fragmentation increases variability in habitat types. We explored these alternatives by investigating VA and QST using nine fragmented populations of brook trout varying 50-fold in census size N (179-8416) and 10-fold in effective number of breeders, Nb (18-135). Across 15 traits, no evidence was found for consistent differences in VA and QST with population size and almost no evidence for increased variability of VA or QST estimates at small population size. This suggests that (i) small populations of some species may retain adaptive potential according to commonly adopted quantitative genetic measures and (ii) populations of varying sizes experience a variety of environmental conditions in nature, however extremely large studies are likely required before any firm conclusions can be made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.015 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".