MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138573212 · doi:10.1002/wsb.230

A technique to discriminate <i>Canis</i> mitochondrial DNA of New World and Old World origins using specific primers

2012· article· en· W2138573212 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathalie Tessier, Astrid Vik Strønen, François‐Joseph Lapointe

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitochondrial DNACanisBiologyEvolutionary biologyZoologyGeographyGeneticsEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Genetic markers play an important role in elucidating taxonomic uncertainties for a wide range of organisms. We present a set of specific primers to distinguish between Canis mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of New World (North American) and Old World (Eurasian) origin using the ATP‐8 region and gel electrophoresis. We amplified mtDNA from Old World (gray wolves [ Canis lupus L., 1758]) and New World canids (coyotes [ C. latrans Say, 1823] and eastern wolves [ C. lycaon Schreber, 1775 or C. lupus lycaon ]) collected during 2003–2009 in Québec, Canada, using a multiplexed primer triplet. The results showed a standard band of 150 base pairs (bp) for New World and Old World mtDNA. In addition, Old World mtDNA displayed a second band of 100 bp. The range extent of wolves with New World mtDNA has important implications for canid conservation. The new method can assist conservation managers with rapid and cost‐effective screening to monitor 1) the distribution and abundance of wolves with New World and Old World mtDNA, and 2) wolf–coyote hybridization, when used in combination with morphological information and other nuclear markers. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207