MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907407017

The Population Genetics Of The Wood Frog, Rana Sylvatica, Across Its Geographic Range

2007· article· en· W2907407017 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tina Squire

Bibliographic record

VenueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)BiologyPopulation geneticsEvolutionary biologyRanaPopulationEcologyGeographyDemographyAnatomyEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine the level of genetic variation across the continental-wide range of the wood frog, Rana sylvatica. Levels of genetic differentiation between sampled populations were investigated as was the possible locations of glacial refugia for this species. DNA microsatellites were used as the genetic marker. This study found significant genetic differentiation across the geographic range of Rana sylvatica that increased with geographic distance. In addition three likely glacial refugia, Alaska, New York and the southern Appalachians, were identified. A subset of the populations used in the geographic range study was used to investigate the patterns at a regional scale including North Dakota, Minnesota and Manitoba. While glaciation and recolonization would be expected to play a major role in the patterns seen at the geographic range it was unclear if these forces would play such an important role at a smaller scale. Microsatellite DNA showed that while glaciation and recolonization were likely important in the establishment of populations it appears current geographical barriers, such as the Red River of the North, are keeping populations on either side genetically divergent.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207