MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414606651 · doi:10.1086/738889

Identifying Areas of Potential Risk Based on Future Genetic Adaptability in Three Arctic Whale Species

2025· article· en· W4414606651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Evelien de Greef, Claudio G. Müller, Anthony A. Snead, L. Ruth Rivkin, Steven H. Ferguson, Cortney A. Watt, Marianne Marcoux, Stephen D. Petersen, Colin J. Garroway

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeluga WhaleArcticBelugaClimate changeWhaleSea iceContext (archaeology)Genetic diversityForaging

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) are endemic Arctic whales adapted to cold-water conditions that depend on sea ice for foraging and protection from predators. We forecasted the degree of genetic mismatch these species may experience under future climate change scenarios by the next century using Canadian Arctic genomic samples in genotype-environment association models. When examining local adaptation to different environmental variables, we found that ice thickness was the strongest environmental predictor for bowhead whales, while temperature and chlorophyll concentration, an indicator of primary productivity, carried greater weight for beluga whales and narwhals. Notably, a higher degree of genetic mismatch for all three species was observed in the Canadian High Arctic and Hudson Bay, suggesting that whales in these areas may exhibit the greatest maladaptive risk to climate change. This multispecies assessment of Arctic-adapted whales provides insight into the spatial congruence between three genomic datasets and context for designing ecosystem-wide evolutionarily enlightened conservation strategies.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207