MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of Mutton Charollais Lambs and Their Cross Lambs Born from Indigenous Fat Tailed and F1 Prolific Breed Ewes

2018· article· en· W2895653528 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Müzeyyen Kutluca Korkmaz, Ebru Emsen

Bibliographic record

VenueTurkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAwassiCrossbreedPurebredBreedBiologyWeaningAnimal scienceFlockLitterBirth weightVeterinary medicinePregnancyMedicineAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of dam breed on lambs sired by Charollais rams and purebred Charollais lambs obtained via embryo transfer. Frozen Charollais semen and embryos, used to obtain crossbreed and purebred Charollais lambs, were imported from elite flock with pedigrees and progeny test in Canada.The study was conducted on the crossbred Charollais lambs born from Tushin, and Romanov F1 ewes (Romanov × Morkaraman), and Charollais lambs born from Awassi, Morkaraman and Tushin surrogate ewes. The data was collected on 61 lambs (23 Charollais: CH, 20 Tushin × Charollais: F1 CH and 18 Charollais × Romanov F1:COR) from birth to weaning. Average weights at birth for CH, F1 CH and COR lambs were 4.32 ± 0.18 kg, 4.17 ± 0.18 kg, 3.18 ± 0.19 kg and at the age of 60 days were 21.20 ± 1.07 kg, 20.94 ± 0.84 kg, 18.13 ± 0.91 kg, respectively. The genotype of dams significantly affected birth and weaning weights of crossbred lambs, but not average daily live weight gain (ADG). Litter size had constant significant effect on the traits evaluated. Survival rates of crossbred lambs from birth to weaning were affected by the dam genotype. Birth weights and survival rates of CH lambs born from embryo transfer were affected by recipient genotypes and Awassi ewes were found to be the best surrogate mothers.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTurkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and TechnologySame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207