MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hares on ice: phylogeography and historical demographics of <i>Lepus arcticus</i>, <i>L. othus</i>, and <i>L. timidus</i> (Mammalia: Lagomorpha)

2005· article· en· W2110010862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Waltari, Joseph A. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhylogeographyBeringiaBiologyArcticEcologyPleistocenePopulationRange (aeronautics)Genetic diversityPhylogeneticsPaleontologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phylogeographical investigations of arctic organisms provide spatial and temporal frameworks for interpreting the role of climate change on biotic diversity in high-latitude ecosystems. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted on 473 base pairs of the mitochondrial control region in 192 arctic hares (Lepus arcticus, Lepus othus, Lepus timidus) and two individual Lepus townsendii. The three arctic hare species are closely related. All L. othus individuals form one well-supported clade, L. arcticus individuals form two well-supported clades, and L. timidus individuals are scattered throughout the phylogeny. Arctic hare distribution was altered dramatically following post-Pleistocene recession of continental ice sheets. We tested for genetic signatures of population expansion for hare populations now found in deglaciated areas. Historical demographic estimates for 12 arctic hare populations from throughout their range indicate that L. arcticus and L. othus persisted in two separate North American arctic refugia (Beringia and High Canadian Arctic) during glacial advances of the Pleistocene, while the high genetic diversity in L. timidus likely reflects multiple Eurasian refugia.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations74
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EcologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207