MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964589879 · doi:10.4141/cjas10002

Analysis of genetic diversity in four Canadian swine breeds using pedigree data

2010· article· en· W1964589879 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M.G. Melka, Flávio S. Schenkel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic diversityBreedGenetic driftBiologyPopulationDiversity (politics)Genetic distanceEffective population sizeStatisticsVeterinary medicineGeneticsDemographyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conservation of animal genetic resources entails judicious assessment of genetic diversity as a first step. The objective of this study was to analyze the trend of within-breed genetic diversity and identify major causes of loss of genetic diversity in four swine breeds based on pedigree data. Pedigree files from Duroc (DC), Hampshire (HP), Lacombe (LC) and Landrace (LR) containing 480 191, 114 871, 51 397 and 1 080 144 records, respectively, were analyzed. Pedigree completeness, quality and depth were determined. Several parameters derived from the in-depth pedigree analyses were used to measure trends and current levels of genetic diversity. Pedigree completeness indexes of the four breeds were 90.4, 52.7, 89.6 and 96.1%, respectively. The estimated percentage of genetic diversity lost within each breed over the last three decades was approximately 3, 22, 12 and 2%, respectively. The relative proportion of genetic diversity lost due to random genetic drift in DC, HP, LC and LR was 74.5, 63.6, 72.9 and 60.0%, respectively. The estimated current effective population size for DC, HP, LC and LR was 72, 14, 36 and 125, respectively. Therefore, HP and LC have been found to have lost considerable genetic diversity, demanding priority for conservation. Key words: Genetic drift, effective population size

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207