MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161852935 · doi:10.82308/16250

A genetic study of longevity in swine /

2003· dissertation· en· W7161852935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frédéric Fortin

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLongevitySireHerdCullingHeritabilityLitterCrossbreedWeaningTrait

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from the Quebec swine breeding program (1980 to 2001) were used to estimate genetic parameters for longevity and to evaluate the contribution of non-genetic factors. After data verifications, there were 28,377 Yorkshire, 30,123 Landrace and 7,830 Duroc sows with records of herd life. The program 'The Survival Kit V3.12' (Ducrocq and Solkner, 2001) was used to estimate heritability separately within each breed, using a Cox proportional hazard model. The time-independent fixed effects of age at first service and of the combinations of herd with year of birth, estimated breeding value (EBV) backfat, EBV age to 100 kilograms and EBV litter size were included. The effects of number of piglets born, number of piglets weaned, crossbreeding at insemination, stage of sow (farrowing, weaning or heat) and their combination with parity were treated as fixed time-dependent variables whereas herd by year was treated as random time-dependent variable. The random effect of sire using sire relationships back two generations was considered as the source of genetic variation. Length of productive life (longevity) was defined as the number of days from first service until culling.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→French-language works237,207→