Development of composite sheep breeds in the world: A review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1850s, breeders established breed societies which maintained flock registries and actively participated in show rings, exhibitions and auctions promoting pure breeds that conformed to the breeders’ vision of uniform and distinct morphological characteristics. At that time, the performance of the pure breeds over grade sheep was overwhelming. As a result influential government officials, specialists and scientists had to acknowledge their superiority. The supply of purebred seedstock that was initially adequate became sparse in the years following the World War II because demand arising from the increasing human population exceeded the capacity for production. Thus, stimulated interest in higher productivity for commercial production resulted in the development of multi-breed synthetic populations for specific objectives e.g. reproduction, meat quality, meat and wool combinations, wool for textile, carpet wool, fur, and milk production. Today, as many as 418 sheep breeds that have been documented in...
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it