The impact of founder events and introductions on genetic variation in the muskox Ovibos moschatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The muskox is an ungulate that is well adapted to severe arctic conditions. Native \npopulations are today found in northern Canada, the Canadian archipelago and on the \nnortheastern coast of Greenland. Throughout its existence the muskox has been subject to \nmany fluctuations in population size, both due to changing climate and intensive hunting \nduring the hide trade in the 18- and 1900's. However, small refugia have persisted, \nallowing the muskox to increase in numbers again. In addition, introductions and \ntranslocations of the muskox around the Arctic have allowed the species to colonise new \nterritories such as west Greenland and Norway. In 1971 five muskoxen left Norway and \nfounded a population in Härjedalen, Sweden. Today (2008) the Swedish population \nconsists of seven individuals. When trying to reinforce the genetic variation within the \npopulation one cow was mated with a captive Greenlandic bull, which resulted in a calf in \n2006. To find out how muskox populations have been affected by sequential founder events \nmuskox samples from the Canadian archipelago, east and west Greenland, Norway and \nSweden were studied, using highly variable microsatellite markers. The result shows that \nthe allelic variation follows the expectations of the founder events where Canada has the \nhighest variation, followed by Greenland. However, the Swedish population has more \ngenetic variation than Norway. This is explained by the contribution of two new alleles by \nthe half-Greenlandic calf, indicating that one individual can make a large impact regarding \nthe genetic variation. Also, the zoo population contains a higher degree of genetic variation \nthan many of the introduced populations, revealing the importance of preserving the \nbreeding programmes in zoos.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".