Asymmetrical male-mediated gene flow between harbor seal (<i>Phoca vitulina</i>) populations in Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harbor seals ( Phoca vitulina richardii (Gray, 1864)) in Alaska are currently treated as three distinct management stocks. Previous genetic analyses using mitochondrial DNA suggested that these stocks are differentiated genetically. We studied populations in Glacier Bay (GB; Southeast Alaska Stock), where harbor seals are declining, and Prince William Sound (PWS; Gulf of Alaska Stock), where the population has recently stabilized. Using six pairs of hypervariable microsatellite primers, we determined that these populations are a single panmictic unit with estimated migration rates of 22 animals/generation (PWS to GB) and 63 animals/generation (GB to PWS). The asymmetrical gene flow between GB and PWS is likely driven in part by a recent increase in competitors and predators of seals in GB. In contrast with males, emigration of females from PWS to GB (8.3 seals/generation) is higher than emigration of females from GB to PWS (3.3 seals/generation), likely because females use glacial ice as pupping habitat. Despite the high gene flow, the number of migrants per year (0.02% of the Gulf of Alaska population) is likely too low to influence the demographics of harbor seals in PWS, and the two populations may best be managed as separate stocks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".