Cytogenetic survey of breeding boars for chromosome abnormalities in the Canadian pig population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cytogenetic survey was conducted on 98 breeding boars from 4 farms in Saskatchewan and Ontario to obtain an estimate of the frequency of chromosome abnormalities in the Canadian pig population. This frequency was estimated at 50% for the hypoprolific group (two translocations, rcp(1;6)(p22,q12) and rcp(10;13)(p13,q45), were found in boars siring small litters) and at 2.5% for the young group (one translocation, rcp(9;14)(p24;q27), was found in a boar selected but not yet used for breeding). A decrease in prolificacy of more than 40% was estimated for the 1/6 and 10/13 translocations and of 26% for 9/14 translocation after reproduction of the boar carrier. The percentage of stillbirth and repeat breeding was also calculated for the 1/6 and 9/14 translocations of 0.5%, 33% and 8.7%, 29%, respectively. All the rearrangements were highlighted using G-band techniques. To confirm the reciprocal characteristic of 10/13 and 9/14 translocations, the FISH technique was used. However, with the 9/14 translocation, an additional technique, immunostaining for synaptonemal complex, was required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".