MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085368561 · doi:10.1159/000075721

A comparative map of bovine chromosome 19 based on a combination of mapping on a bacterial artificial chromosome scaffold map, a whole genome radiation hybrid panel and the human draft sequence

2003· article· en· W2085368561 on OpenAlexaff
S. S. Moore, C. Hansen, J. L. Williams, Anyao Fu, Yuyu Meng, Chunde Li, Y. Zhang, B.S.D. Urquhart, Marco A. Marra, Jacquie Schein, B. Benkel, Pieter J. de Jong, Kazutoyo Osoegawa, Brian Kirkpatrick, C. A. Gill

Bibliographic record

VenueCytogenetic and Genome Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Alberta
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilRoswell Park Cancer Institute
KeywordsBacterial artificial chromosomeBiologyRadiation hybrid mappingChromosomeGeneticsSequence-tagged siteGenomeGene mapChromosome regionsGene mappingComputational biologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have constructed a medium density physical map of bovine chromosome 19 using a combination of mapping loci on both a bovine bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) scaffold map and a whole genome radiation hybrid (WGRH) panel. The resulting map contains 70 loci spanning the length of bovine chromosome 19. Three contiguous groups of BACs were identified on the basis of multiple loci mapping to individual BAC clones. Bovine chromosome 19 was found in this study to be comprised almost entirely from regions of human chromosome 17, with a small region putatively assigned to human chromosome 10. Fourteen breakpoints between the bovine and human chromosomes were detected, with a possibility of five more based on ordering of the WGRH map.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCytogenetic and Genome ResearchSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207