MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097342735

RESEARCH ARTICLE Inbreeding dynamics in reintroduced, age-structured populations of highly fecund species

2015· article· en· W7097342735 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInbreedingEffective population sizePopulationOffspringMating systemMatingSex ratioGenetic diversityPopulation size
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reintroduction programs aim at reinstalling a self-sustained population into the wild via a period of supplementation with captive-bred individuals. This pro-cedure can rapidly generate inbreeding among offspring because of the mating scheme and this inbreeding might be further enhanced by the reintroduction scenario. First, we used simulations to assess the consequences of breeding designs on mean inbreeding index F among offspring when the genetic diversity of breeders, the number and sex ratios of breeders, and the proportion of successful crosses vary. A high number of breeders, a balanced sex ratio, a high proportion of effective crosses and a genetically diverse source population generally contribute to lower F values. However, moderately high (‡20) numbers of breeders combined with all but the most biased sex ratios produced mean F values near minimal values. The variability in F was negligible in all parameter combinations except for a very small number of breeders (5) and very biased sex ratios ( £ 1M: 19F). We also simulated the long-term inbreeding dynamics in the introduced population under various demographic scenarios. Our main finding was that the annual number of introduced offspring is a decisive factor in establishing long-term F values in the supple-mented population. Low supplementation levels (102) quickly generated an almost completely inbred population whereas high levels ( ‡ 104) produced stable F values close to that of the introduced offspring. Simulations were run based on the life history and specific demographics of the bloater (Coregonus hoyi), whose reintroduction in Lake Ontario is being considered.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic diversity and population structure→French-language works237,207→