MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3173490139 · doi:10.82308/45371

Range limitations and phylogeography of stream salamanders in Quebec and Labrador

2006· article· en· W3173490139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tricia M. Markle

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogeographyRange (aeronautics)GeographyGeologyPhysical geographyEcologyBiologyPhylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical barriers are known to limit species' ranges, but, in the absence of physical barriers, what prevents adaptation and expansion at the periphery? Genetic influence from central populations may prevent adaptation to ecological barriers by swamping peripheral populations with suboptimal genes. If this is the case, then isolation may enable local adaptation and further range expansion. Barriers such as rivers provide ideal tests of the influence of gene flow and may explain differences in range sizes. This study investigates northern range limitations and phylogeography of the Northern Two-lined ( Eurycea bislineata) and Northern Dusky (Desmognathus fuscus ) stream salamanders. Phylogeographic patterns of populations throughout Quebec and Labrador were investigated by sequencing portions of cytochrome b and 12S rRNA mitochondrial DNA genes. Interpopulation divergence was low for both species, however, unique genetic haplotypes and morphological variation on the north shore of the St. Lawrence indicate that the river is acting as a barrier to gene flow.

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)0.001
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 score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies→French-language works237,207→