Wolf body mass cline across Minnesota related to taxonomy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent genetic studies suggest that in northern Minnesota two species of wolves (Canis lupus L., 1758 or western wolf and Canis lycaon Schreber, 1775 (= Canis rufus Audubon and Bachman, 1851) or eastern wolf) meet and hybridize. However, little morphological information is available about these two types of wolves in Minnesota. We analyzed the mass of 950 female wolves and 1006 males older than 1 year from across northern Minnesota and found that it increased from 26.30 ± 0.56 kg (mean ± SE) for females and 30.60 ± 0.72 kg for males in northeastern Minnesota to 30.01 ± 0.43 kg for females and 35.94 ± 0.45 kg for males in northwestern Minnesota (females: r2= 0.79, P < 0.02; males: r2= 0.63, P = 0.06). These mass differences add morphological information to the identities of eastern and western wolves and support the view that ranges of the two species meet in Minnesota.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".