MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967184088 · doi:10.5061/dryad.540bt

Data from: Adaptive and neutral markers both show continent-wide population structure of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae)

2016· dataset· en· W6967184088 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2016
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationGenetic structureSingle-nucleotide polymorphismMountain pine beetleGenetic markerRange (aeronautics)Population structure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessments of population genetic structure and demographic history have traditionally been based on neutral markers while explicitly excluding adaptive markers. In this study, we compared the utility of putatively adaptive and neutral single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for inferring mountain pine beetle population structure across its geographic range. Both adaptive and neutral SNPs, and their combination, allowed range-wide structure to be distinguished and delimited a population that has recently undergone range expansion across northern British Columbia and Alberta. Using an equal number of both adaptive and neutral SNPs revealed that adaptive SNPs resulted in a stronger correlation between sampled populations and inferred clustering. Our results suggest that adaptive SNPs should not be excluded prior to analysis from neutral SNPs as a combination of both marker sets resulted in better resolution of genetic differentiation between populations than either marker set alone. These results demonstrate the utility of adaptive loci for resolving population genetic structure in a nonmodel organism.

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)0.002
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.023

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
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
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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