MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6892204292 · doi:10.5061/dryad.606j6

Data from: "Polar bear (Ursus maritimus) transcriptome assembly and SNP discovery" in Genomic Resources Notes accepted 1 August 2013-30 September 2013

2013· dataset· en· W6892204292 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2013
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscriptomeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismSNPBayLitterGenetic variationDe novo transcriptome assemblyDeep sequencing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the Western Hudson Bay subpopulation have been declining in size and body condition for decades, as climate change causes earlier sea ice breakup, reduced hunting time on the ice, and an increasingly long fasting season. As Western Hudson Bay females have decreased in size, rates of litter production and average litter size have also decreased, while cub mortality and average time to independence have increased. Although these changes have potential evolutionary consequences, little is yet known about the adaptive genetic variation in body size or fat accumulation that would have to underlie any such change. In this study, we used high-throughput Illumina sequencing to develop SNPs from pooled blood and fat transcriptomes, using samples from five adult female polar bears and five (unrelated) dependent cubs. In total, we generated 371,258 transcripts of which 36,755 were deemed to be “full length” (i.e., covered more than 90% of their best BLAST hit), and we identified 63,020 SNPs. Since this study was conducted, we have used a subset of these SNPs to develop an Illumina BeadArray for quantitative genetics research in Western Hudson Bay.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1100.085

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)→French-language works237,207→