MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242567236 · doi:10.6000/1927-520x.2020.09.07

Study of Population Structure and Genetic Prediction of Buffalo from Different Provinces of Iran using Machine Learning Method

2020· article· en· W4242567236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zahra Azizi, Hossein Moradi Shahrbabak, Seyed Abbas Rafat, M. Moradi Shahrbabak, J. Shodja

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Tehran
KeywordsPopulationArtificial intelligenceMachine learningStatisticsGeographyComputer scienceDemographyMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Considering breeding livestock programs to milk production and type traits based on existence two different ecotypes of Iranian’s buffalo, a study carried out to investigate the population structure of Iranian buffalo and validate its classification accuracy according to different ecotypes from Iran (Azerbaijan and North) using data SNP chip 90K by means Support vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF) and Discriminant Analysis Principal Component (DAPC) methods. A total of 258 buffalo were sampled and genotyped. The results of admixture, multidimensional scaling (MDS), and DAPC showed a close relationship between the animals of different provinces. Two ecotypes indicated higher accuracy of 96% that the Area Under Curve (AUC) confirmed the obtained result of the SVM approach while the DAPC and RF approach demonstrated lower accuracy of 88% and 80 %, respectively. SVM method proved high accuracy compared with DAPC and RF methods and assigned animals to their herds with more accuracy. According to these results, buffaloes distributed in two different ecotypes are one breed, and therefore the same breeding program should be used in the future. The water buffalo ecotype of the northern provinces of Iran and Azerbaijan seem to belong to the same population

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.596
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207