Hybridisation between dingoes and domestic dogs in proximity to <scp>Indigenous</scp> communities in northern <scp>Australia</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In northern Australia, wild dog populations potentially interact with domestic dogs from remote communities, which would create opportunities for disease transmission at the wild-domestic interface. An example is rabies, in the event of an incursion into northern Australia. However, the likelihood of such wild-domestic interactions is ambiguous. Hybridisation analyses based on 23 microsatellite DNA markers were performed on canine-origin scats collected in bushland areas around remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Peninsula Area, Queensland. Sufficient DNA was extracted from 6 of 41 scats to assess the percentage of dingo purity. These scats most likely originated from two 'pure' domestic dogs (0% dingo purity), one hybrid (20% dingo purity) and three 'pure' dingoes (92%-98% dingo purity). The two domestic dog samples were collected in the vicinity of communities. The location of two of the dingo-origin samples provides genetic evidence that dingoes are present in areas close to the communities. The availability of anthropogenic food resources likely creates opportunities for interactions with domestic dogs in the region. The hybrid sample demonstrates the occurrence of antecedent contacts between both populations by means of mating and supports the likelihood of a spatio-temporal overlap at the wild-domestic interface. This represents the first genetic survey involving a wild dog population of equatorial northern Queensland, with evidence of dingo purity. Our results have implications for potential disease transmission within a priority area for biosecurity in northern Australia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".