MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321444071 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v136i3.2705

A late Pleistocene Wood Turtle (<i>Glyptemys insculpta</i>) from Iowa, USA: response of the taxon to glaciation and formation of the current range

2023· article· en· W4321444071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew G. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Northern IowaWisconsin Historical Society
KeywordsSubfossilPleistoceneRadiocarbon datingGlacial periodRange (aeronautics)Turtle (robot)HoloceneGeologyMegafaunaLast Glacial MaximumPaleoecologyPaleontologyBiological dispersalEcologyArchaeologyPhysical geographyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The partial shell of a Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta) was collected from the West Branch of the East Nishnabotna River in southwestern Iowa, near Malvern. By direct accelerator mass spectrometry, it radiocarbon dates to the late Pleistocene (10 220 ± 30 years before present [BP], 11 975–11 813 calibrated years [cal] BP). Other subfossil evidence indicates that Wood Turtles moved far south of their current range, into the southeastern United States, in response to late Pleistocene glaciation. The specimen suggests that the species also moved south and west, into a previously undocumented western range, where favourable habitat and, in particular, somewhat cooler summer temperatures prevailed until ~10 200 cal BP. My assessment of the Holocene subfossil record suggests that establishment of the western portion of the current range may have occurred within the past 1000 years. Phylogenetic analysis and direct radiometric dating of subfossil specimens are needed to determine additional details about the late Pleistocene dispersal of Wood Turtle and the postglacial formation of their current range.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.217
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207