MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031122049 · doi:10.1139/f03-125

Spread of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout, <i>Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi</i>, and nonnative rainbow trout, <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>

2003· article· en· W2031122049 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathaniel P. Hitt, Christopher A. Frissell, Clint C. Muhlfeld, Fred W. Allendorf

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesUniversity of Montana
KeywordsRainbow troutFlatheadIntrogressionOncorhynchusBiologyTroutEcologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined spatial and temporal patterns of hybridization between native westslope cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi, and nonnative rainbow trout, O. mykiss, in streams of the Flathead River system in Montana, U.S.A. We detected hybridization in 24 of 42 sites sampled from 1998 to 2001. We found new Oncorhynchus mykiss introgression in seven of 11 sample populations that were determined to be nonhybridized in 1984. Patterns of spatial autocorrelation and linkage disequilibrium indicated that hybridization is spreading among sites and is advancing primarily via post-F 1 hybrids. Although hybridized populations were distributed widely throughout the study area, the genetic contribution from O. mykiss decreased with increasing upstream distance from the Flathead River mainstem, suggesting that O. mykiss introgression is spreading in an upstream direction. The spread of hybridization may be constrained more by demographic than by environmental factors, given that (i) hybridized populations generally encompassed the range of environmental variability in nonhybridized populations, and (ii) hybridization status was more strongly associated with neighborhood statistics than measured environmental gradients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations172
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207