Data from: Genetic differentiation of eastern wolves in Algonquin Park despite bridging gene flow between coyotes and grey wolves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Distinguishing genetically differentiated populations within hybrid zones and determining the mechanisms by which introgression occurs are crucial for setting effective conservation policy. Extensive hybridization among grey wolves (Canis lupus), eastern wolves (C. lycaon) and coyotes (C. latrans) in eastern North America has blurred species distinctions, creating a Canis hybrid swarm. Using complementary genetic markers, we tested the hypotheses that eastern wolves have acted as a conduit of sex-biased gene flow between grey wolves and coyotes, and that eastern wolves in Algonquin Provincial Park (APP) have differentiated following a history of introgression. Mitochondrial, Y chromosome and autosomal microsatellite genetic data provided genotypes for 217 canids from three geographic regions in Ontario, Canada: northeastern Ontario, APP and southern Ontario. Coyote mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplotypes were common across regions but coyote-specific Y chromosome haplotypes were absent; grey wolf mtDNA was absent from southern regions, whereas grey wolf Y chromosome haplotypes were present in all three regions. Genetic structuring analyses revealed three distinct clusters within a genetic cline, suggesting some gene flow among species. In APP, however, 78.4% of all breeders and 11 of 15 known breeding pairs had assignment probability of Qgreater than or equal to0.8 to the Algonquin cluster, and the proportion of eastern wolf Y chromosome haplotypes in APP breeding males was higher than expected from random mating within the park (P<0.02). The data indicate that Algonquin wolves remain genetically distinct despite providing a sex-biased genetic bridge between coyotes and grey wolves. We speculate that ongoing hybridization within the park is limited by pre-mating reproductive barriers.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".