Genetic diversity and population structure of the indigenous goat population in Tunisia's northwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elucidating genetic diversity is critical for improving breeding strategies. To this end, the present study investigated the genetic diversity and population structure of the local goat population sampled from the northwestern region of Tunisia. The genetic variability was estimated using seven microsatellites, which revealed high diversity and genetic population clustering with a dispersed geographical distribution. All of the markers showed a significant genetic polymorphism, with an average of 18 alleles. Thus, 123 alleles were detected in the seven loci of the six studied populations. This result reflects the existence of a significant polymorphism within the local goat population. Overall, the highest H O was 0.952, and the highest H E was 0.942. Furthermore, the goat population demonstrated negative F IS (−0.177). This negative value shows an overall excess of heterozygotes, suggesting the absence of inbreeding. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) revealed that genetic differences within the population explained 92.4 % of the variation. A low average F ST (0.076) suggests intermixing among Tunisian goats. Genetic distance values range from 0.319 to 0.985.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".