MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2147499749 · doi:10.1139/z09-141

Population substructure of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) in Washington State using mtDNA

2010· article· en· W2147499749 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Harriet R. Huber, SJ Jeffries, Dyanna M. Lambourn, Bobette R. Dickerson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhocaEstuaryBayPopulationFisheryOceanographyGeographyEcologyBiologyArchaeologyGeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the pupping phenology and genetic variation between the currently defined stocks of harbor seals, Phoca vitulina richardsi (Gray, 1864), in Washington’s coastal and inland waters and looked in detail at genetic variation within the inland waters of Washington. We analyzed mtDNA variation in 552 harbor seals from nine areas in Washington State and the Canada–US transboundary waters. A total of 73 haplotypes were detected; 37 individuals had unique haplotypes. Pupping phenology and levels of genetic variation between the outer coastal stock (WA Coastal Estuaries, WA North Coast) and the inland waters stock (British Columbia, Boundary Bay, San Juan Islands, Smith/Minor Islands, Dungeness Spit, Hood Canal, Gertrude Island) corroborated the appropriateness of the present stock boundary. However, within the inland waters stock, Hood Canal and Gertrude Island were significantly different from the coastal stock, from the rest of the inland waters stock, and from each other. This indicates a total of four genetically distinct groups in Washington State, suggesting that managing the inland waters as a single stock may be erroneous.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicMarine animal studies overview→French-language works237,207→