MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962235662 · doi:10.3390/genes10070540

The Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) Genome

2019· article· en· W2962235662 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rebecca S. Taylor, Rebekah L. Horn, Xi Zhang, G. Brian Golding, Micheline Manseau, Paul J. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMcMaster UniversityTrent University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba HydroCompute Canada
KeywordsGenomeBiologySequence assemblyReference genomeWhole genome sequencingGenome projectGeneGeneticsGenomicsComputational biologyEvolutionary biologyTranscriptome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rangifer tarandus, known as caribou or reindeer, is a widespread circumpolar species which presents significant variability in their morphology, ecology, and genetics. A genome was sequenced from a male boreal caribou (R. t. caribou) from Manitoba, Canada. Both paired end and Chicago libraries were constructed and sequenced on Illumina platforms. The final assembly consists of approximately 2.205 Gb, and has a scaffold N50 of 11.765 Mb. BUSCO (Benchmarking Universal Single-Copy Orthologs) reconstructed 3820 (93.1%) complete mammalian genes, and genome annotation identified the locations of 33,177 protein-coding genes. An alignment to the bovine genome was carried out, indicating sequence coverage on all bovine chromosomes. A high-quality reference genome will be invaluable for evolutionary research and for conservation efforts for the species. Further information about the genome, including a FASTA file of the assembly and the annotation files, is available on our caribou genome website. Raw sequence data is available at the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), under the BioProject accession number PRJNA549927.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations34
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207