MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967330531 · doi:10.5061/dryad.tdz08kq8d

Divergence in genetic (co)variances and the alignment of gmax with phenotypic divergence

2025· dataset· en· W6967330531 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueDRYAD · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllopatric speciationSympatric speciationSympatryDivergence (linguistics)Genetic divergenceReproductive isolationCharacter displacementPopulationGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To better understand the sources of biological diversity in nature, we need information on the mechanisms underlying population divergence. Biological systems with patterns of naturally occurring adaptive variation among populations can provide insight into the genetic architecture of diverging traits and the influence of genetic constraints on responses to selection. Using a system of reproductive character displacement in the North American mushroom-feeding fly Drosophila subquinaria, we assessed patterns of genetic (co)variance among a suite of chemical signaling traits and divergence in this pattern among populations. D. subquinaria exhibits stronger reproductive isolation against the closely related Drosophila recens in sympatry, where both female mating preferences and male chemical signalling traits have diverged from the ancestral allopatric populations. We collected three wild populations from each region and, in the lab, characterized the phenotypic divergence in these traits as well as the additive genetic (co)variance structure (G-matrix) with replicate breeding designs. We found divergence between allopatric and sympatric D. subquinaria in the shape and size of the G-matrix, and that the leading axis of genetic variance (gmax) had changed in sympatry to come into alignment with the primary axis of phenotypic divergence between the sympatric and allopatric regions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.240 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDRYADFrench-language works237,207