MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967080028

Genetic Analysis of Population Dynamics of the Southeastern Coyote (Canis latrans)

2009· article· en· W2967080028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Steve Dennis, J. Armstrong, Wendy M. Arjo, Kinsey M. Brock, Antoinette J. Piaggio

Bibliographic record

VenueUtah State Research and Scholarship (Utah State University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanisPopulationGeographyDemographyZoologyEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coyotes (Canis latrans) have been extremely successful in dispersing and expanding their range that now includes all fifty states of the United States in addition to Canada and parts of Central America. These animals have generally been considered a pest species due to their adaptive ability, high reproductivity, and impact as a top predator on commercial agricultural business. Population dynamics of coyotes is still poorly understood, yet such knowledge would be beneficial to management of coyotes in all areas. The goal of this study is to determine population structure in Alabama by using microsatellite DNA markers. In addition we plan to examine patterns of gene flow across an urban to rural gradient. This research is extremely applicable in urban coyote management as we will be able to describe gene flow between and among population of coyotes. Information gained about population structure among coyotes in east-central Alabama could be informative about populations across the southeastern region. It is our expectation that such biological data will be consolidated with the vast knowledge of the ecology of the southeastern coyote gathered to date to inform and aid management plans and decisions across the region. Approaching both conservation and management issues with a more unbiased view of the ecology of coyote populations will allow greater effectiveness in management practices for this 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUtah State Research and Scholarship (Utah State University)Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207