MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2006721190 · doi:10.1139/z04-169

Haldane's rule and American black duck × mallard hybridization

2004· article· en· W2006721190 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ronald E. Kirby, Glen A. Sargeant, Dave Shutler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnasBiologyIntrogressionPopulationInterspecific competitionZoologyRange (aeronautics)EcologyDemographyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species ratios and rangewide distributions of American black ducks (Anas rubripes Brewster, 1902) and mallards (Anas platyrhynchos L., 1758) have undergone recent changes. Mechanisms behind these changes are not known with certainty, but recent investigations have focused on the possibility of competitive exclusion and the consequences of hybridization. Consequences of hybridization have been difficult to assess because of the difficulty in identifying hybrids beyond the F1generation and lack of means to quantify introgression in wild populations. We documented a postmating isolating mechanism between the two species that follows Haldane's rule in controlled, interspecific matings in captive populations. Hybridization reduces the proportion of F1females available to return to the breeding grounds in the subsequent year. This effect, although likely small in overall population consequences in any year, may be of local significance and may contribute to recent reports of range shifts in both American black ducks and mallards.

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)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→