Conservation and management of genetic diversity: a domestic animal perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of domestic animal diversity, the term "breed" is conventionally used for all recognized populations. There are in total about 5000 breeds, a small proportion of which are in planned programs for genetic improvement, while about 30% are at risk of extinction. The primary focus is on the conservation of breeds, including management for better utilization (breeding programs) and conserving those at risk, with the aim of minimizing the loss of among breed diversity. The majority of the world's breeds are in the developing countries, with production environments that are low to medium input and high stress, and each may be expected to have adapted to its specific environment. Empirical evidence strongly supports the expectation that the genetic basis of population differentiation for fitness traits will be nonadditive, with different adaptive gene complexes evolved in each breed. Genetic improvement programs therefore should start with an adapted population, with selection then for production traits. As not all breeds can be conserved, priorities must be determined. Suggested criteria (breed divergence, risk of breed extinction, breed "merit," and within-breed variation) are presented and evaluated. Similar approaches may be appropriate for the conservation of genetic diversity of forest trees.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".