Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domesticated animal breeds as we know them today were invented in Victorian Britain.(Worboys et al, 2017) Over thousands of years, domestication had produced a variety of physical forms and physiologies in each domesticated species, selected for different environments, agricultural systems, and support roles.The term 'breed' had been mainly used for regional varieties of cattle and sheep, typically named after geographical areas, or for commercial brands, such as Robert Bakewell's New Leicesters.(Walton, 1986) These 'area' and 'brand' breeds had different forms, which had developed from and were secondary to their function at stud, on grass, and at market.However, from the 1860s, form trumped function, and breed was extended by fanciers to domestic animals, especially at the new fancy shows.Competition drove the proliferation and differentiation of fancy breeds, resulting in more distinct, discrete, and decorative forms.Breed clubs, associations of gentlemen, sportsmen, fanciers and, later, farmers, orchestrated these changes in ideas and remade animal bodies.Clubs emerged from the new phenomenon of national fancy and livestock competitions.Regional and local agricultural shows had a long history, but the railway and the telegraph made national events possible.Just as railway timetables needed
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".