MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6967024162 · doi:10.5061/dryad.qj840

Data from: Impact of population expansion on genetic diversity and structure of river otters (Lontra canadensis) in central North America

2013· dataset· en· W6967024162 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2013
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPigment Synthesis and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic diversityPopulationMustelidaeHabitatMicrosatelliteDrainage basinBiodiversityPopulation genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Populations of North American river otters (Lontra canadensis) declined throughout large portions of the continent during the early 1900s due to habitat degradation and unregulated trapping. River otters had been extirpated in North Dakota (ND), but the Red River Valley has since been recolonized, with potential source populations including the neighboring states of Minnesota or South Dakota, or the Canadian province of Manitoba (MB). We genotyped 9 microsatellite loci in 121 samples to determine the source population of river otters in the Red River Valley of ND, as well as to assess population structure and diversity of river otters in central North America. Overall, genetic diversity was high, with an average observed heterozygosity of 0.58. Genetic differentiation was low (F ST < 0.05) between river otters in ND and those of Minnesota, suggesting that eastern ND was recolonized by river otters from Minnesota. River otters from MB were genetically distinct from all other sampled populations. Low genetic differentiation (F ST = 0.044) between South Dakota and Louisiana (LA) suggested that reintroductions using LA stock were successful. The genetic distinctiveness of river otters from different geographic regions should be considered when deciding on source populations for future translocations.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.265
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicPigment Synthesis and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207