Morphological characteristics of breast and thigh muscles of slow- and medium growing strains of chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphological characteristics of skeletal muscles of slow- and medium-growing strains of chickens are very important for meat quality and comparison with fast-growing strains. The aim of this paper was to evaluate morphological parameters of breast and thigh muscles of slow- and mediumgrowing strains in a free-range system. The slow-growing strains used in the experiment were autochthonous breeds Sombor crested and Banat naked neck, and the medium-growing strain was Red-bro. The tissue samples were taken from the thigh muscle and muscles of the breast of 10 chickens of each breed. Samples were stained with hematoxylin - eosin and enzyme succinate - dehydrogenase (SDH). The following morphological parameters were observed: diameter of muscle cells, nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio of muscle cells, volume density of connective tissue within the muscle and the presence of red, white and intermediate muscle cell types. Between strains, the type of muscle or genotype didn?t have significant effects on diameters of muscle cells and nucleo-cytoplasmic ratio in the muscle cells. Results indicated that genotype had significant effect on volume density of the connective tissue in breast muscles. Red muscle cells were, in all strains, significantly more represented in m. biceps femoris than m. pectoralis superficialis. Genotype had significant effect on ratio between connective tissue and muscle cells and no significant effects on other morphological parameters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".