MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073712057 · doi:10.1139/z00-042

Phylogeography of black bears (<i>Ursus americanus</i>) of the Pacific Northwest

2000· article· en· W2073712057 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karen Stone, Joseph A. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Department of Fish and WildlifeAlaska Department of Fish and GameU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPhylogeographyUrsusBiologyEcologyBayLineage (genetic)Biological dispersalTaxonOceanographyPopulationPhylogeneticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phylogeographic study across codistributed taxa provides temporal and spatial perspectives on the assemblage of communities. A repeated pattern of intraspecific diversification within several taxa of the Pacific Northwest has been documented, and we contribute additional information to this growing data set. We analyzed variation in two mitochondrial genes (cytochrome b and control region) for the black bear (Ursus americanus) and expand previous analyses of phylogeographic variation. Two lineages (coastal and continental) exist; the coastal lineage extends along the Pacific coast from the Takhin River north of Glacier Bay National Park, southeast Alaska, to northern California, whereas the continental lineage is more widespread, occurring from central Alaska to the east coast. Both lineages occur along the coast of southeast Alaska, where interlineage divergence ranged from 3.1 to 3.6% (uncorrected p distances). Multiple lineages of other species have also been identified from southeast Alaska, indicating a complex history for the assembly of biotic communities along the North Pacific coast. The overlapping of the distributions of the black bear lineages with those of other birds and mammals suggests comparable routes of colonization.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.669

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations68
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207