MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065541108 · doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1185

Genetic variation in domestic and wild elk (Cervus elaphus)1

2008· article· en· W2065541108 on OpenAlexaffabout
Matthew A. Cronin, Lyle A. Renecker, John C. Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervus elaphusGenetic variationMicrosatelliteBiologyZoologyLivestockDomesticationGenetic distanceGenetic variabilityLoss of heterozygosityMitochondrial DNALocus (genetics)HerdEcologyAlleleGeneticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elk (Cervus elaphus) have recently been established as domestic livestock derived from extant wild populations and may provide insights into changes in genetic variation during domestication. We compared genetic variation at 10 microsatellite DNA loci and the mitochondrial DNA D-loop in 2 herds of domestic elk in Alaska and Canada and wild elk from 8 locations in western North America and Asia. Average individual heterozygosity was 0.55 in domestic elk and 0.47 in wild elk, average number of alleles per locus was 4.1 in domestic elk and 3.9 in wild elk, and 4 mitochondrial DNA haplotypes were observed in domestic elk and 3 in wild elk. Levels of genetic variation were not significantly different among the domestic elk and wild elk we analyzed. Our results are consistent with other studies showing that genetic variation can be maintained in domestic and wild populations of elk and other deer with appropriate management.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207