MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971665626 · doi:10.1139/z02-147

Reproductive success in wood bison (<i>Bison bison athabascae</i>) established using molecular techniques

2002· article· en· W1971665626 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Gregory Wilson, Wes Olson, Curtis Strobeck

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBison bisonBiologyReproductive successNational parkInbreedingPopulationThreatened speciesEcologyZoologyReproductionDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we used 21 microsatellite loci to establish the reproductive success of the wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) population at Elk Island National Park, Alberta, Canada. Wood bison are considered threatened in Canada, and this population is currently used to found new populations. Despite the low levels of genetic variation in this population, we were able to establish paternity in 253 and maternity in 295 of the 317 calves born in Elk Island National Park over the 4-year study period. Roughly 40% of the mature males were reproductively successful each year. Mature males produced a mean of 3.8 offspring over the study period, with a range of 0–24. Each year, approximately 50–70% of the cows produced calves, with a mean of 2.7 over the study period. Multiple linear regressions were performed to determine the effects of age, mass, heterozygosity, prior success, and the year of conception on male and female reproductive success. Only mass and prior success were useful in predicting male reproductive success. Female reproductive success depended on age, mass, and prior success and was also affected by environmental differences between years. No evidence was found for inbreeding avoidance in wood bison.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207