MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1565142632 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0307123101

The effect of climatic forcing on population synchrony and genetic structuring of the Canadian lynx

2004· article· en· W1565142632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nils Chr. Stenseth, Dorothée Ehrich, Eli Knispel Rueness, Ole Christian Lingjærde, Kung‐Sik Chan, Stan Boutin, Mark O’Donoghue, David A. Robinson, Hildegunn Viljugrein, Kjetill S. Jakobsen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForcing (mathematics)StructuringEcologyPopulationAbundance (ecology)Climate changeEvolutionary dynamicsGeographyClimatologyEnvironmental scienceBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abundance of Canadian lynx follows 10-year density fluctuations across the Canadian subcontinent. These cyclic fluctuations have earlier been shown to be geographically structured into three climatic regions: the Atlantic, Continental, and Pacific zones. Recent genetic evidence revealed an essentially similar spatial structuring. Introducing a new population model, the "climate forcing of ecological and evolutionary patterns" model, we link the observed ecological and evolutionary patterns. Specifically, we demonstrate that there is greater phase synchrony within climatic zones than between them and show that external climatic forcing may act as a synchronizer. We simulated genetic drift by using data on population dynamics generated by the climate forcing of ecological and evolutionary patterns model, and we demonstrate that the observed genetic structuring can be seen as an emerging property of the spatiotemporal ecological dynamics.

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
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 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

Citations60
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207