MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972465638 · doi:10.1111/jeb.13533

No evidence of inbreeding depression in fast declining herds of migratory caribou

2019· article· en· W2972465638 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marianne Gagnon, Glenn Yannic, Charles Perrier, Steeve D. Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersLabexNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère des Forêts, de la Faune et des Parcs
KeywordsInbreeding depressionInbreedingBiologyDemographyEcologyHerdZoologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying inbreeding depression early in small and declining populations is essential for management and conservation decisions. Correlations between heterozygosity and fitness (HFCs) provide a way to identify inbreeding depression without prior knowledge of kinship among individuals. In Northern Quebec and Labrador, the size of two herds of migratory caribou (Rivière-George, RG and Rivière-aux-Feuilles, RAF) has declined by one to two orders of magnitude in the last three decades. This raises the question of a possible increase in inbreeding depression originating from, and possibly contributing to, the demographic decline in those populations. Here, we tested for the association of genomic inbreeding indices (estimated with 22,073 SNPs) with body mass and survival in 400 caribou sampled in RG and RAF herds between 1996 and 2016. We found no association of individual heterozygosity or inbreeding coefficient with body mass or annual survival. Furthermore, those genomic inbreeding indices remained stable over the period monitored. These results suggest that the rapid and intense demographic decline of the herds did not cause inbreeding depression in those populations. Although we found no evidence for HFCs, if demographic decline continues, it is possible that such inbreeding depression would be triggered.

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 score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207