MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119264380 · doi:10.4141/cjas2011-112

Assessment of chromosome instability in geese (<i>Anser anser</i>)

2012· article· en· W2119264380 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ewa Wójcik, Elżbieta Smalec

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromosome instabilitySister chromatid exchangeChromosomeGeneticsBiologyChromosomal fragile siteSister chromatidsChromatidDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wójcik, E. and Smalec, E. 2012. Assessment of chromosome instability in geese ( Anser anser ). Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 49–57. The basic test applied in the research of chromosome instability is the test of sister chromatid exchange (SCE). It makes it possible to identify single-and double-strand DNA damage caused by genotoxic factors and those that disrupt DNA damage repair mechanisms. Fragile sites in chromosomes can be found in all organisms. They are chromosome sites showing susceptibility to breakages and discontinuities in specific conditions of cell culture and also following induction with chemical substances. Chromosome instability of Anser anser geese was assessed in the research, focussing on sister chromatid exchange and the identification of fragile sites. The mean SCE/cell was 4.75±1.00. Most SCEs were identified in the proximal part of the chromosomes. Fragile sites were also identified in the chromosomes during the research. Altogether, 138 breakages were observed in the chromosomes. Apart from identifying chromosome damage, the particular instances of damage were located in the chromosomes.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207