Bibliographic record
Abstract
Myodes rutilus (Pallas 1779) [Mus] rutilus Pallas 1779, Nova Spec. Quad. Glir. Ord.: 246. Type Locality: Russia, Siberia, center of Ob River delta. Vernacular Names: Northern Red-backed Vole. Synonyms: Myodes alascensis (Miller 1898); Myodes albiventer (Hall and Gilmore 1932); Myodes amurensis (Schrenk 1859); Myodes baikalensis (Ognev 1924); Myodes dawsoni (Merriam 1888); Myodes dorogostaiskii (Vinogradov 1933); Myodes finmarchius (Siivonen 1967); Myodes glacialis (Orr 1945); Myodes hintoni (Vinogradov 1933); Myodes hintoni (Zolotarev 1936); Myodes insularis (Heller 1910); Myodes jacutensis (Vinogradov 1927); Myodes jochelsoni (J. A. Allen 1903); Myodes laticeps (Ognev 1924); Myodes latigriseus (Argyropulo and Afanasiev 1939); Myodes lenaensis (Koljuschev 1936); Myodes mikado (Thomas 1905); Myodes mollessonae (Kastschenko 1910); Myodes narymensis (Argyropulo and Afanasiev 1939); Myodes orca (Merriam 1900); Myodes otus (Turov 1924); Myodes parvidens (Ognev 1924); Myodes platycephalus (Manning 1957); Myodes rjabovi (Beljaeva 1953); Myodes rossicus (Dukelsky 1928); Myodes russatus (Radde 1862); Myodes salairicus (Egorin 1936); Myodes tugarinovi (Vinogradov 1933); Myodes tundrensis (Bolshakov and Schwarz 1965); Myodes uralensis (Vinogradov 1933); Myodes uralensis (Koljusch 1936); Myodes vinogradovi (Naumov 1933); Myodes volgensis (Kaplanov and Raevsky 1928); Myodes washburni (Hanson 1952); Myodes watsoni (Orr 1945). Distribution: Holarctic—in Old World, from N Scandinavia east to Chukotski Peninsula, and south to N Kazakhstan, Transbaikalia, Mongolia, N China (NW Xinjiang in the west, Nei Mongol and Ningxia in northcentral, and Jilin and Heilongjiang in the northeast; Zhang et al., 1997), extreme N Korean Peninsula (Won and Smith, 1999), and Sakhalin and Hokkaido Isls (Dobson, 1994; Henttonen and Peiponen, 1982; Nikanorov, 2000); St. Lawrence Isl, Bering Sea; in New World, from Alaska east to Hudson Bay, and south to N Alaska Panhandle, N British Columbia, and NE Manitoba, Canada. Conservation: IUCN – Lower Risk (lc). Discussion: Conspecificity of Old (rutilus) and New World (dawsoni) populations advanced by Rausch (1953) and corroborated by subsequent studies (e.g., Nadler et al., 1976, 1978; Rausch and Rausch, 1975 a). Phylogenetic interpretation of allozymes indicates that M. rutilus is most closely related to M. gapperi, the two forming a monophyletic group along with M. glareolus and M. centralis but excluding M. rufocanus (Mezhzherin and Serbenyuk, 1992). Analyses of autosomes (Iwasa et al., 1999 b) and mitochondrial and nuclear ribosomal DNA (Suzuki et al., 1999 b; Wakana et al., 1996) also emphasize the phyletic distance between M. rutilus and M. rufocanus and its allies (M. andersoni, M. smithii, M. rex, M. regulus). North American populations revised, as Clethrionomys dawsoni, by Orr (1945), and, as C. rutilus by Manning (1956). European populations reviewed by Henttonen and Peiponen (1982) and Mitchell-Jones et al. (1999); those in Russia and adjacent regions by Gromov and Erbajeva (1995). M3 variation and its systematic implications evaluated by Nakatsu (1982) for Japanese populations. Iwasa et al. (1999 b) contrasted the sex chromosomes and pachytene synapses of Hokkaido M. rutilus with Hokkaido M. rufocanus and Japanese species of Eothenomys (here = Myodes); karyotypes of M. rutilus and M. rufocanus from Hokkaido are essentially identical and closely resemble mainland species of Myodes (Obara et al., 1995). Phylogeography of M. rutilus in NE Asia, and comparisons with M. rufocanus which has a similar geographic range, assessed by mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences (Iwasa et al., 2002). Occurrence on the Svjatoj Nos peninsula and isthmus in Lake Baikal documented by Reiter et al. (1995). In Hokkaido, Japan, M. rutilus occurs with M. rufocanus and M. rex (see those accounts and that of M. gapperi).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.068 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".