An overview of genetic relationships of Canadian and adjacent populations of belugas (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>) with emphasis on Baffin Bay and Canadian eastern Arctic populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our current knowledge of the molecular genetics of High Arctic beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) populations (West Greenland, Lancaster Sound/Barrow Strait, Grise Fiord) and populations that are related (southeast Baffin, Beaufort Sea), is presented. In general, genetic analyses confirm the designation of putative stocks and suggest the existence of more stocks than previously described. Comparisons based on mitochondrial DNA haplotypes show that West Greenland (1992) belugas were significantly differentiated from Lancaster Sound/Barrow Strait, Kimmirut, Iqaluit, and/or Pangnirtung but not from Grise Fiord. Grise Fiord haplotypes were not significantly differentiated from Lancaster Sound/Barrow Strait and not from southeast Baffin locations in some years. Lancaster Sound and southeast Baffin collections were not significantly differentiated from each other. These patterns existed for most years within locations, however a few yearly collections within major locations had different patterns. The collections that differed were small groups with few haplotypes, most likely relatives. Patterns in microsatellite differentiation were slightly different than those for haplotypes. This may be due to the fact that individuals in sampled summering populations breed with individuals in other populations during migration or in overwintering areas. West Greenland and Grise Fiord microsatellites were not significantly differentiated from each other. However, Greenland differed from Lancaster Sound and southeast Baffin Island, while Grise Fiord did not. In southeast Baffin Island, Pangnirtung samples differed from Kimmirut using both haplotypes and microsatellites. Iqaluit samples had intermediate genetic characteristics between Pangnirtung and Kimmirut. Patterns of significant differentiation among collections within locations was believed to be due to a combination of temporal patterns, sampling of relatives, chance, seasonal hunting, small sample sizes, and actual differences among 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".