MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tempo and mode of evolutionary divergence in modern and Holocene Vancouver Island marmots (<i>Marmota vancouverensis</i>) (Mammalia, Rodentia)

2009· article· en· W2077632682 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David W. Nagorsen, Andrea Cardini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySubfossilMarmotOsteologyEcologyPopulationZoologyPleistoceneHolocenePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marmota vancouverensis is the only insular species among the 14 species of marmots. The evolutionary history of this species is unresolved. Although M. vancouverensis is strongly differentiated in osteological and other morphological characters, its low genetic divergence suggests recent evolution from an ancestral continental species. We used geometric morphometric techniques to assess the morphology of hemimandibles from 239 modern M. vancouverensis, Marmota caligata, Marmota flaviventris, Marmota olympus and 30 Holocene (9435–735 cal. yr bp) subfossil M. vancouverensis. Our results confirm that the mandible of M. vancouverensis is strongly differentiated in shape from continental marmot species, but similar in size to its mainland sister species M. caligata. Temporal variation in size and shape over the past 2500 years among allochronic samples of M. vancouverensis was minimal suggesting that the morphological divergence of this species occurred in a period of rapid change following its isolation from mainland populations in the late Pleistocene. Selection pressures associated with environmental changes and founder effects and genetic drift resulting from population bottlenecks created by population declines and habitat fragmentation are hypothesized as factors contributing to the morphological divergence of this species.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations25
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary ResearchSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207