MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561345573 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v117i4.828

Landscape Influence on <em>Canis</em> Morphological and Ecological Variation in a Coyote-Wolf <em>C. lupus</em> × <em>latrans</em> Hybrid Zone, Southeastern Ontario

2003· article· en· W1561345573 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMinistry of Natural ResourcesMax Bell FoundationWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsCanisOdocoileusEcologyGeographyBiologyGray wolfFragmentation (computing)PredationRange (aeronautics)Zoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecology of Coyote-Wolf (Canis latrans × C. lupus) hybrids has never fully been typified. We studied morphological and ecological variation in Canis within a region of Coyote-Wolf hybridization in southeastern Ontario. We assessed Canis morphology from standard body measurements and ten skull measurements of adult specimens and found that Canis in this region are morphologically intermediate between Algonquin Provincial Park Wolves (C. lupus lycaon) and Coyotes, indicating a latrans × lycaon hybrid origin; however, there is a closer morphological affinity to latrans than lycaon. Analysis of 846 scats indicated dietary habits also intermediate between lycaon and Coyotes. We used a geographic information system (GIS) to assess spatial landscape features (road density, land cover and fragmentation) for six study sites representing three landscape types. We found noticeable variation in Canis morphology and diet in different landscape types. In general, canids from landscape type A (lowest road density, more total forest cover, less fragmentation) displayed more Wolf-like body morphology and consumed a greater proportion of larger prey (Beaver [Castor canadensis] and White-tailed Deer [Odocoileus virginianus]). In comparison, canids from landscape types B and C (higher road density and/or less total forest cover, more fragmentation) were generally more Coyote-like in body and skull morphology and made greater use of medium to small-sized prey (Groundhog [Marmota monax], Muskrat [Ondatra zibethicus] and lagomorphs). These landscape trends in Canis types suggest selection against Wolf-like traits in fragmented forests with high road density. The range of lycaon southeast of Algonquin Provincial Park appears to be limited primarily due to human access and consequent exploitation. We suggest that road density is the best landscape indicator of Canis types in this region of sympatric, hybridizing and unprotected Canis populations.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.192 · 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