MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4381613640 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v136i4.3009

Malocclusion in an Arctic Wolf (<i>Canis lupus arctos</i>) from northeast Greenland

2023· article· en· W4381613640 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ulf Marquard‐Petersen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanisArcticPopulationGeographyTundraMalocclusionDemographyPhysical geographyEcologyMedicineBiologyDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I document the first case of malocclusion in an Arctic Wolf (Canis lupus arctos) from Greenland. All canine teeth of a wolf found dead on the tundra of northeast Greenland showed evidence of heavy anterior wear resulting from occlusion with the opposite teeth. Additional heavy wear on the incisors indicated a level bite. No cases of malocclusion were found in the largest museum collection of Arctic Wolf skulls (n = 11) from Greenland. However, the collection consisted exclusively of specimens from a northeast Greenland wolf population extirpated ca. 1939; thus, it provided no information on the incidence of malocclusion in more contemporary wolves. A finding of malocclusion in the more recent wolf population could be important because the condition is genetically based and the trait is expressed more frequently with increased inbreeding. The small, geographically isolated wolf population that this wolf was a part of disappeared for reasons unknown after 2002 and genetic conditions cannot be excluded as a contributing factor. Future study of the prevalence and severity of this abnormality in Arctic Wolves from Greenland will be problematic because of the difficulty of acquiring comparative material, but could be conducted on other populations of Arctic Wolves.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→