MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319741569 · doi:10.2527/jas.2011-4822

The investigation of ultrasound technology to measure breast muscle depth as a correlated trait to breast meat yield in turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)

2012· article· en· W2319741569 on OpenAlexaff
L.A. Case, Benjamin J. Wood, Stephen P. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeleagris gallopavoChicken breastYield (engineering)TraitUltrasoundBiologyAnimal scienceMedicineFood scienceRadiologyMaterials scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultrasound measurements of muscle depth were analyzed to determine if these traits could be used to increase the rate of genetic gain in breast meat yield (BMY). Two measurements of breast depth, one taken horizontally across both breast lobes and one parallel to the keel, were captured using ultrasound. Heritabilities of muscle depth traits ranged from 0.35 to 0.70. These values were greater than heritabilities of conformation scores, which ranged from 0.25 to 0.47 within sex and line. The ultrasound traits also showed strong genetic correlations to BMY, ranging from 0.43 to 0.75, indicating that selection, using ultrasound depth as a correlated information source, could result in improved BMY. Including each ultrasound trait in a linear regression model predicting BMY increased the proportion of variation explained by the models by 0.08 to 0.17, relative to using conformation score as the only in vivo estimate. Based on results from a simulated turkey breeding program with selection pressure only on BMY, the ultrasound measures could increase the accuracy of a selection index for BMY by 0.02 to 0.16. As a result, ultrasound technology has the potential to improve the rate of genetic gain in BMY in a breeding program.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations19
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207