Population genetic structure of tailed frogs (<i>Ascaphus truei</i>) in clearcut and old-growth stream habitats in south coastal British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascaphus truei Stejneger, 1899 relies on cool, fast-flowing, forested mountain streams, which receive little protection from logging activities. During recovery of post-logging habitats, local extirpation of Ascaphus is a concern because their recolonization may be slow. In British Columbia, Oregon, and California, coastal Ascaphus populations are designated as "at risk". To infer fragmentation impacts from patterns of genetic structure, we used RAPD molecular markers and compared population genetic structures of Ascaphus larvae in an old growth with an adjacent clearcut stream located in coastal British Columbia. In the clearcut, larvae were less genetically diverse than in the old growth and exhibited no relationship between physical distance and genetic relatedness, whereas in the old growth, genetic similarity decreased with physical distance. Patterns of gene flow between the clearcut and old-growth streams were significantly different. The clearcut population went through a bottleneck/founding event, but also exhibited greater dispersal. The frogs were perhaps searching for new habitat (which would lower isolation by distance) and suffering mortality (which would decrease diversity). Most problems in conservation will require genetic and ecological data, and future research should aim to incorporate methodologies from both fields.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".