Data from: The extent of hybridization between bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and brook trout (S. fontinalis) across Alberta’s Eastern slopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying hybridization provides insight into risks associated with non-native species. Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), a charr native to Alberta, face population declines across their range and one risk may include hybridization with non-native brook trout (S. fontinalis). However, the extent of introgressive hybridization throughout Alberta is not well understood. Therefore, we aimed to quantify bull x brook trout hybridization in three ways: 1. the observed hybrid presence across Alberta, 2. the proportion of post-F1 hybrids (e.g., F2 and backcrossed), and 3. the hybrid proportion relative to brook trout in well-sampled watersheds. Using two panels of >1,000 diagnostic Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, we identified 35 F1 and 7 post-F1 hybrids (n = 42 total) across 10 HUC 8 watersheds. Our findings show hybridization throughout the bull trout range, however, with few post-F1 hybrids found, little evidence of extensive hybrid introgression was observed. The misidentification rate was low (2.1%), but 20 of 25 misidentifications involved confirmed hybrids, suggesting a higher misidentification rate (47.6%). This work improves the understanding of hybridization risks on at-risk bull trout in Alberta.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".