Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Domestication of agricultural animals began 10 000 years ago. From a wide array of wild animals, only a small number were and, for specifiable reasons, could be domesticated. Trait selection and breeding has been the principal mechanism of animal improvement until the late twentieth century. As with much of early science, enhancing beneficial traits was a trial and error process. An understanding of the genetic mechanisms and environmental factors in that process was a twentieth‐century triumph. Drawing on physiological, behavioural, genetic, evolutionary and ecological knowledge significantly enhanced selection and breeding efforts. In the twentieth century, scientific advancements were numerous. Of special significance were the introduction of artificial insemination, and the nature, prevention and treatment of pathogenic diseases. Late twentieth‐century agricultural biology began to employ techniques of molecular genetic manipulation (transgenic animals), initially using farm animals as bioreactors. Improvements in cloning, pronuclear injection and use of stem cells can be expected to dominate research and development in twenty‐first‐century animal agriculture. Key Concepts The early evolution of animal domestication was trial and error. Human and agricultural animals coevolved. The mechanisms of speciation were important processes in the early period but only well understood in the twentieth century. The quantitative genetics of farm animal makes trait improvement challenging. Critical variables in the trait farm animals are understood but difficult to manipulate. The importance of multiple trait selection is now well understood. Artificial insemination and cryopreservation of sperm have significantly improved trait manipulation and preservation. Knowledge of pathogens has allowed antibiotics and sanitation to be effectively employed. Animals as pharmaceutical and material bioreactors has been recent and expanded the genetic modification of animals. There are challenges and promises of cloning, pronuclear injection and stem cell use in animal agriculture emerging in the twenty‐first century.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".