MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127215376 · doi:10.1093/jmammal/gyaa175

Characterizing the elusive Vancouver Island wolverine, <i>Gulo gulo vancouverensis</i>, using historical DNA

2020· article· en· W3127215376 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Evan W Hessels, Eric C. Lofroth, Richard D. Weir, Jamieson C. Gorrell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentGovernment of British ColumbiaCollège BoréalVancouver Island University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVancouver Island University
KeywordsSubspeciesPopulationGeographyMustelidaeEcologyMicrosatelliteMainlandBiologyZoologyEvolutionary biologyDemographyAlleleGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The wolverine (Gulo gulo) is a Holarctic species found in North America primarily across the boreal forest, the subarctic, and along the Pacific coast, including Vancouver Island (VI), British Columbia. While wolverines on VI are rare and possibly extirpated, they have been previously described as a unique subspecies, G. g. vancouverensis, distinct from G. g. luscus from the mainland of North America. However, the validity of the VI subspecies is contentious, with conflicting results from studies of skull morphology. Here, we used molecular analyses to characterize the genetic diversity of the VI population and resolve this taxonomic debate to assist with conservation priorities. Historical DNA of VI wolverines was obtained from museum specimens, amplified at 16 nuclear microsatellite loci, and sequenced at the mitochondrial D-loop control region to compare with wolverines from mainland British Columbia. The VI population had lower allelic richness and was fixed for a single common mtDNA haplotype. Bayesian and non-Bayesian assignments using microsatellites generally revealed admixture across populations, implying allele frequencies between the VI and mainland populations were not significantly different. Hence, both types of genetic markers showed little evolutionary divergence between VI and the mainland population. Combined, these results do not provide evidence of significant genetic distinction for VI wolverines, nor support the subspecific classification. Immediate conservation efforts should focus on estimating population size, while future conservation planning can assume VI wolverines likely are not a unique genetic population and there remains the potential for natural recolonization of wolverines to VI.

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 score0.847
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207