MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395016268 · doi:10.5376/ijmz.2024.14.0007

The Relationship between Epigenetic Changes and Seasonal Changes in Rabbits

2024· article· en· W4395016268 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mengshi Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Zoology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpigeneticsBiologySeasonalityEvolutionary biologyGeneticsEcologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the close relationship between epigenetic changes and seasonal changes in rabbits. Through in-depth analysis of the epigenome of rabbits in different seasons, the researchers found that there are significant differences in the epigenome of rabbits in winter and summer, indicating that seasonal changes may be a key factor driving epigenetic changes in rabbits. one. Further research revealed the impact of seasonal changes on rabbit gene expression, showing that the expression levels of genes related to adaptation to low-temperature environments increased in the cold season, while other genes showed different expression patterns in the hot summer. Research limitations are mainly reflected in the limited geographical scope and sample size. Future research can understand the epigenetic changes of rabbits in different seasons from a more comprehensive perspective by expanding the research scope and introducing more regional data. In addition, future research can also be expanded to spring and autumn, as well as under different climate conditions, to gain a deeper understanding of the impact of seasonal changes on rabbit epigenetics. Finally, this research is not only of great significance to understanding rabbit biology, but also provides some useful inspirations for ecology and agriculture, and provides theoretical support for animal protection and animal husbandry.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular ZoologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207