Genetic structure of North American wolverine (<i>Gulo gulo</i>) populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wolverines (Gulo gulo) are found in low densities throughout their circumpolar distribution. They are also potentially susceptible to human-caused population fragmentation (development, recreation and fur harvesting). The combination of these factors has contributed to this species being listed as having either vulnerable or endangered status across much of its current range. The effects of inherently low densities and anthropogenic pressures on the genetic structure and variation of wolverine populations are, as yet, unknown. In this study, 461 individuals were typed at 12 microsatellite loci to investigate the population genetic structure of wolverines from north-western Alaska to eastern Manitoba. Levels of gene flow and population differentiation among the sampled regions were estimated via a genotype assignment test, pairwise F(ST), and two genetic distance measures. Our results suggest that wolverine populations from southernmost regions, in which anthropogenic factors are strongest, revealed more genetic structuring than did northern populations. Furthermore, these results suggest that reductions in this species' range may have led to population fragmentation in the extreme reaches of its southern distribution. The continued reduction of suitable habitat for this species may lead to more populations becoming isolated remnants of a larger distribution of northern wolverines, as documented in other North American carnivore 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".