Biomechanic potentials of the canine and carnassial teeth in the lines of American mink (<i>Neogale vison</i> Schreber 1777) following their selection for defensive behavior traits as compared to a natural population and related species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences between the lines of aggressive and tame American minks that arose as a result of selection for traits of defensive behavior (16–17 generations) were revealed based on the biomechanic indices of the mandible characterizing the mechanic potentials of the canine and carnassial teeth. The results are consistent with D. K. Belyaev’s theory of destabilizing selection: along with an increase in the variability of functions and the destabilization of the historically established system of their sexual differences (sexual dimorphism), new biomechanic features of the mandible were formed in the line of tame minks. In contrast, the control line of non-selected minks unaffected by selection retained significant sex differences in biomechanic indices. Between the American minks from a Canadian natural population and the lines of aggressive and tame individuals, the differences in biomechanic indicators were less pronounced than between the lines themselves. Differences between the American mink, the European mink (Mustela lutreola L. 1758) and the Siberian weasel (M. sibirica Pallas 1773) in the biomechanic potentials of the canine and predatory teeth of the mandible which reflect specializations in the genus Neogale and the specifics of the hunting behavior of the species were found. In the invasive American mink, the mechanic potential (MP) of the canine tooth prevails, vs the MP of the carnassial tooth both in the European mink and the Siberian weasel, this trait being capable of ensuring the divergence of their trophic niches and contribute to the preservation of native species in areas of their sympatry with N. vison.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".