Differentiation and adaptation among fishers in Western Canada: Evidence for validity of Pekania pennanti columbiana subspecies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work has shown that fishers (Pekania pennanti) in Western Canada are split into at least 2 populations, with the endangered Columbian population that occurs in central British Columbia being genetically distinct from fishers in the Boreal population of northern and northeastern portions of the province. To better understand other differences that may exist between these populations, I examined morphological, diet, and age-structure differences using data collected from 329 carcasses collected from trappers between 1989-1993 and live-captures of 105 fishers by researchers between 1996 and 2023. Fishers from the Columbian population had significantly different axial and appendicular skeletons from those in the Boreal population and were significantly smaller in body mass, body and tail length, foot area, neck girth, and chest girth. Despite their smaller overall body mass, fishers in the Columbian population had significantly higher foot-loading than did fishers from the Boreal population. Fishers in the Columbian population also had significantly different winter diets than those in the Boreal population, ingesting mid-sized mammals, grouse, and squirrels more often and ungulates and small mammals less frequently than did fishers in the boreal forest. Age structures were not significantly different between populations but were dominated by juvenile and subadult individuals. These significant differences in morphology and diet were coincident with numerous significant differences in the biotic and abiotic environments in which each population occurred and, when coupled with the genetic and possible biogeographical history of the 2 populations, suggested considerable adaptive differentiation that substantiates the subspecies concept for P. p. columbiana.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".