MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047864865 · doi:10.1520/jfs2004207

A PCR Multiplex and Database for Forensic DNA Identification of Dogs

2005· article· en· W2047864865 on OpenAlexaff
Joel Halverson, Christopher Basten

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forensic Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrosatelliteInbreedingDNA profilingBiologyPopulationLoss of heterozygosityMultiplexGeneticsForensic identificationForensic scienceSuspectEvolutionary biologyDatabaseAlleleDNAMedicineCriminologyComputer sciencePsychologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animal-derived trace evidence is a common finding at crime scenes and may provide an important link between victim(s) and suspect(s). A database of 558 dogs of pure and mixed breeds is described and analyzed with two PCR multiplexes of 17 microsatellites. Summary statistics (number of alleles, expected and observed heterozygosity and power of exclusion) are compared between breeds. Marked population substructure in dog breeds indicates significant inbreeding, and the use of a conservative theta value is recommended in likelihood calculations for determining the significance of a DNA match. Evidence is presented that the informativeness of the canine microsatellites, despite inbreeding, is comparable to the human CODIS loci. Two cases utilizing canine DNA typing, State of Washington v. Kenneth Leuluaialii and George Tuilefano and Crown v. Daniel McGowan, illustrate the potential of canine microsatellite markers for forensic investigations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.006

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations45
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Forensic SciencesSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207