MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6966908450 · doi:10.5061/dryad.pt2g084

Data from: Adaptive radiation along a deeply conserved genetic line of least resistance in Anolis lizards

2018· dataset· en· W6966908450 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2018
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic driftAnolisNatural selectionAdaptive radiationGenetic architectureSelection (genetic algorithm)Genetic divergenceGenetic variationAdaptation (eye)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On microevolutionary timescales, adaptive evolution depends upon both natural selection and the underlying genetic architecture of traits under selection, which may constrain evolutionary outcomes. Whether such genetic constraints shape phenotypic diversity over macroevolutionary timescales is more controversial, however. One key prediction is that genetic constraints should bias the early stages of species divergence along “genetic lines of least resistance” defined by the genetic (co)variance matrix, G. This bias is expected to erode over time as species means and G matrices diverge, allowing phenotypes to evolve away from the major axis of variation. We tested for evidence of this signal in West Indian Anolis lizards, an iconic example of adaptive radiation. We found that the major axis of morphological evolution was well aligned with a major axis of genetic variance shared by all species despite separation times of 20-40 million years, suggesting that divergence occurred along a conserved genetic line of least resistance. Further, this signal persisted even as G itself evolved, apparently because the largest evolutionary changes in G were themselves aligned with the line of genetic least resistance. Our results demonstrate that the signature of genetic constraint may persist over much longer timescales than previously appreciated, even in the presence of evolving genetic architecture. This pattern may have arisen either because pervasive constraints have biased the course of adaptive evolution or because the G matrix itself has been shaped by selection to conform to the adaptive landscape.

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)0.006
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.027

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)French-language works237,207