MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215989571 · doi:10.3398/064.081.0303

Phenotypes and Distribution of Yellow-Pine Chipmunk (Neotamias amoenus) of Hybrid Ancestry from the Rocky Mountains of Canada

2021· article· en· W3215989571 on OpenAlexaffabout
David W. Nagorsen, Nick Panter, Darren Copley

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern North American Naturalist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHybrid zoneHybridSubspeciesBiologyRange (aeronautics)Gene flowEcologyZoologyBotanyGenetic variationGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, subspecies of the yellow-pine chipmunk (Neotamias amoenus luteiventris) and red-tailed chipmunk (Neotamias ruficaudus ruficaudus) co-occur in a small area of the Rocky Mountains in southwestern Alberta and southeastern British Columbia. Some N. a. luteiventris individuals in this area are of hybrid ancestry, carrying a mitochondrial DNA gene of N. r. ruficaudus. We tested for phenotypic hybridization by comparing genital bone morphology, body size, cranial mandibular morphology, and tail color of mitochondrial hybrids with specimens of the 2 parental reference groups identified from genetics or genital morphology. Hybrids were indistinguishable from the N. a. luteiventris reference group, demonstrating no intermediacy or increased variability. Our results are consistent with genetic data that suggest minimal nuclear gene flow between the 2 taxa. Five hybrid locations were within the contact zone, but 6 were 14–98 km beyond the known range extent of N. r. ruficaudus. These peripheral occurrences may be a legacy of a past range decline of N. r. ruficaudus in response to Holocene climatic changes that left hybrids outside the present-day contact zone. We recommend more field research in the Canadian Rocky Mountains to determine the full range extent of N. r. ruficaudus and N. a. luteiventris of hybrid ancestry.

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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern North American NaturalistSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207