MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Considering Pleistocene North American wolves and coyotes in the eastern Canis origin story

2020· preprint· en· W3101611994 on OpenAlexaffabout
Paul J. Wilson, Linda Y. Rutledge

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanisPleistoceneGeographyEvolutionary biologyAncient DNAGenomePhylogenetic treePhylogeographyBiologyEcologyZoologyEthnologyArchaeologyDemographyHistoryGeneticsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary origins and hybridization patterns of Canis species in North America has been hotly debated for the past 30 years. Disentangling ancestry and timing of hybridization in Great Lakes wolves, eastern Canadian wolves, red wolves, and eastern coyotes is most often partitioned into a 2-species model that assigns all ancestry to grey wolves and/or coyotes, and a 3-species model that includes a third, North American evolved eastern wolf genome. The proposed models address recent or sometimes late Holocene hybridization events but have largely ignored Pleistocene era opportunities for hybridization that may have impacted the current mixed genomes in eastern Canada and the United States. Here, we re-analyze contemporary and ancient mitochondrial DNA genomes with Bayesian phylogenetic analyses to more accurately estimate divergence dates among lineages. We combine that with a review of the literature on Late Pleistocene Canis distributions to illuminate opportunities for ancient hybridization events between extinct Beringian grey wolves (C. lupus) and extinct large wolf-like coyotes (C. latrans orcutti) that we propose as a potentially unrecognized source of introgressed genomic variation within contemporary Canis genomes. These events speak to the potential origins of contemporary genomes and provide a new perspective on Canis ancestry, but do not influence/negate current conservation priorities of dwindling wolf populations with unique genomic signatures and key ecologically critical roles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic diversity and population structure→French-language works237,207→