MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411932007 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.112870

Population-genomics reveals a dual ancestry of grizzly bears

2025· article· en· W4411932007 on OpenAlexafffund
Menno de Jong, Malik Awan, Nicolas Lecomte, Emily E. Puckett, Anthony P. Crupi, Axel Janke

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersCanada Research ChairsUniversité de MonctonLeibniz-GemeinschaftGovernment of NunavutAlaska Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsGenomicsPopulation genomicsPopulationDual (grammatical number)BiologyEvolutionary biologyGrizzly BearsComputational biologyGeographyData scienceGeneticsGenomeComputer scienceDemographySociologyGenePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic variation among populations reflects both past demographic events and current population connectivity. We investigate the primary drivers of genetic differentiation in American brown bears ( Ursus arctos ) using 108 nuclear genomes. Our analyses reveal that genome-wide distances conform to neither an isolation-by-distance model nor a bifurcating tree structure. Building on previous ancient-DNA and fossil studies, we propose a demographic scenario in which continent-wide admixture during the Late Holocene has obscured, but did not erase, the genetic legacy of earlier colonization waves and subsequent gene flow events. The most persistent signals of these past events are striking genetic similarities between populations now separated by water barriers, including Kamchatka and Southwest Alaska bears. Our findings underscore that convergence to migration-drift equilibrium takes time, making genetic distance an imperfect proxy for present-day population connectivity.

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 score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207