Use of cranial characters in taxonomy of the Minnesota wolf (<i>Canis</i> sp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minnesota wolves (Canis sp.) sometimes are reported to have affinity to a small, narrow-skulled eastern form ( Canis lupus lycaon Schreber, 1775) and sometimes to a larger, broader western form ( Canis lupus nubilus Say, 1823). We found that pre-1950 Minnesota wolf skulls were similar in size to those of wolves from southeastern Ontario and smaller than those of western wolves. However, Minnesota wolf skulls during 1970–1976 showed a shift to the larger, western form. Although Minnesota skull measurements after 1976 were unavailable, rostral ratios from 1969 through 1999 were consistent with hybridization between the smaller eastern wolf and the western form. Our findings help resolve the different taxonomic interpretations of Minnesota skull morphology and are consistent with molecular evidence of recent hybridization or intergradation of the two forms of wolves in Minnesota. Together these data indicate that eastern- and western-type wolves historically mixed and hybridized in Minnesota and continue to do so. Our findings are relevant to a recent government proposal to delist wolves from the endangered species list in Minnesota and surrounding states.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".