Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dicrostonyx groenlandicus (Traill 1823) [Dicrostonyx] groenlandicus (Traill 1823), in: Scoresby, J. Voy. to Northern Whale-Fishery ...: 416. Type Locality: Greenland, Jamesons Land. Vernacular Names: Nearctic Collared Lemming. Synonyms: Dicrostonyx alascensis Stone 1900; Dicrostonyx clarus Handley 1953; Dicrostonyx kilangmiutak Anderson and Rand 1945; Dicrostonyx lentus Handley 1953; Dicrostonyx rubricatus (Richardson 1889). Distribution: N Greenland and Queen Elizabeth Isls, islands in the District of Franklin, and Southampton Isl; N North America above treeline, from NE District of Keewatin, Canada, to N Alaska, USA. Conservation: IUCN – Lower Risk (lc) as D. groenlandicus, D. kilangmiutak, and D. rubricatus. Discussion: In their broad specific concept, Jarrell and Fredga (1993) viewed all North American taxa, except D. hudsonius, as junior synonyms, including the insular forms exsul and vinogradovi. Morphological, distributional, breeding, chromosomal, and-or molecular evidence, albeit uneven and incomplete, persuades us to maintain D. nelsoni, D. nunatakensis, D. richardsoni, D. unalascensis, and D. vinogradovi as distinct (see those accounts). Standard and banded chromosomal comparisons reported by Borowik and Engstrom (1993), who supported the synonymy of clarus and lentus. Engstrom et al. (1993) reported kilangmiutak (2n = 47-50) as karyotypically separable from D. groenlandicus (2n = 38-44), calling them "cytospecies," but found the two to be only marginally differentiated in mitochrondrial DNA sequences; samples drawn from the range of kilangmiutak are morphometrically (Eger, 1995) and genetically (Ehrich et al., 2000) unremarkable in comparisons with D. groenlandicus proper. The form rubricatus (Beringian distribution) shares a distinctive XY-autosomal fusion pattern with D. groenlandicus (Pearyland distribution), different from that found in D. richardsoni (Borowik and Engstrom, 1993); levels of differentiation in cranial form (Eger, 1995) and nucleotide sequences (Ehrich et al., 2000) provide no persuasive evidence for specific separation of rubricatus, although the latter study did disclose weakly defined western and eastern clades divided by the Mackenzie River.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".