MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239221474 · doi:10.1093/ps/84.4.536

Correlated responses to divergent selection for phytate phosphorus bioavailability in a randombred chicken population

2005· article· en· W4239221474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Zhang, Samuel E. Aggrey, G.M. Pesti, R.I. Bakalli, H.M. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAnimal scienceSelection (genetic algorithm)BioavailabilityPopulationTraitFeed conversion ratioPhosphorusGeneticsBody weightChemistryEndocrinologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study was undertaken to evaluate the correlated responses to 3 generations of divergent selection for phytate phosphorus bioavailability (PBA) in the Athens-Canadian randombred chicken population. The traits studied were BW at 4 wk of age, BW gain (BWG), feed consumption (FC), and feed conversion ratio (FCR) during a period of 3 d. The first evaluation criterion was the cumulated divergent correlated response (CR(C)), which was calculated as the line difference of the least square means of phenotypic values for each trait at a given generation after adjustment for sex and hatch effects. The results showed a consistent correlated response in BW across generations. The CR(C) at generation G3 was 26.8 g (P < 0.01). The chickens in the low PBA line (L line) had higher BW than the high PBA line (H line). The CR(C) for BWG, FC, and FCR were significant (P < 0.05) only at G3. The second evaluation criterion was the average best linear unbiased prediction estimated breeding value (EBV). The results showed asymmetric genetic trends in BW, BWG, and FC, and the correlated responses were mainly due to the genetic changes that occurred in H line because little genetic change occurred in L line across generations. At G3, the line differences of EBV were close to the CR(C) values for all the traits except FCR. This suggested that CR(C) and EBV criteria would tend to be consistent with the increase across generations. However, at G1 and G2, the line differences of the EBV actually deviated from the CR(C) values for BWG and FC. The inconsistency could be attributed to experimental errors and genetic drift that were not accounted by the fixed model for obtaining CR(C).

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 score0.657
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207