MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1945444711 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n11p39

Genetic Differentiation among Nigerian Indigenous Goat Populations

2015· article· en· W1945444711 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O. A. Ojo, G. N. Akpa, M. Orunmuyi, I.A. Adeyinka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenetic diversityGene flowMicrosatelliteIndigenousVeterinary medicineGene poolAnimal breedingCoatAlleleBiotechnologyGenetic variationZoologyPopulationGeneticsEcologyGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 200 goats and 25 microsatellite markers proposed by the Food and Agricultural Organization and the International Society for Animal Genetics (FAO-ISAG) were used to determine the genetic diversity of three breeds of the Nigerian indigenous goats, namely Sahel (60), Red Sokoto (60), West African Dwarf (60) and one strain; Kano Brown (20). Genetic differentiation between the breeds and strain ranged from 0.011 to 0.037, and the least genetically differentiated populations were Kano Brown and Red Sokoto. Molecular variations were observed to be higher within populations (96%) than among populations (4%), which suggest higher heterozygosity within populations. This study showed that the Nigerian goats are admixed due to extensive cross-breeding and high gene flow amongst the breeds, and that the goats are geographically distributed in two major locations. Measures to conserve the uniqueness/distinctiveness of the Nigerian goat breeds should be sought, and gene flow between populations should be controlled by adopting effective breeding and management practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Science→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→