Morphological variation in red-backed voles (Myodes gapperi) in Québec and Western Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental heterogeneity has long been associated with morphological variation in small mammals. Studies of ecotypic variation across time and space provide valuable information about the way organisms' phenotypes respond to changing environmental conditions and the major factors influencing morphological changes, providing insight into the mechanisms that promote adaptation. In this thesis, I quantified morphological variation among 12 populations of the widespread and abundant southern red-backed vole, and examined the degree to which climate, primary productivity and ecozones explained variation in the morphological traits. Teeth and skulls of voles collected in several locations along a 1,000 km latitudinal gradient in Québec and Western Labrador were studied using geometric morphometric methods, and the relations between morphology and environmental and spatial variables were examined. Most of the spatial variation in morphology was correlated with environmental gradients. The morphological differentiation among populations could be explained by the environmental differences between their habitats, and precipitation and ecozone were the environmental variables mostly correlated with morphological variation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".