MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A canine linkage map: 39 linkage groups

2001· article· en· W2072577204 on OpenAlexaff
Frode Lingaas, Tone Aarskaug, John A. Gerlach, Rajiv Juneja, Merete Fredholm, Jeffrey R. Sampson, Nicola M. Suter, N. G. Holmes, M. M. Binns, Edward J. Ryder, W. A. van Haeringen, Patrick J. Venta, J. A. Brouillette, Vilma Yuzbasiyan‐Gurkan, Alan N. Wilton, P. Bredbacka, Mikko Koskinen, S. Dunner, David Parra, S. M. Schmutz, C. Schelling, J. Schläpfer, G. Dolf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersAlbert-Heim-StiftungMichigan State UniversitySveriges LantbruksuniversitetUniversity of LeicesterAmerican Kennel Club Canine Health FoundationMorris Animal Foundation
KeywordsLinkage (software)BiologyGenetic linkageGeneticsGenetic linkage mapEvolutionary biologyMicrosatelliteGeneAllele

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary A low resolution canine marker map is an important tool in the further advancements in genetic analysis of dog breeds and the control and reduction of the frequency of inherited diseases. This study presents a genetic linkage analysis with 39 linkage groups using 222 polymorphic canine markers based on typing in the International DogMap reference families, consisting of 129 Beagle and German Shepherd dogs. Of these 39 linkage groups, 14 have been assigned to canine chromosomes by fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH). These results are a further refinement on the first linkage groups from the International DogMap collaboration and represent a continuing collaboration.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations12
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Breeding and GeneticsSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207