MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W129421173 · doi:10.2527/2005.833531x

A simultaneous procedure for deriving selection indexes with multiple restrictions1

2005· article· en· W129421173 on OpenAlexaff
C.Y. Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Variance (accounting)MathematicsIndex (typography)Simple (philosophy)CovarianceStatisticsApplied mathematicsZero (linguistics)Mathematical optimizationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formulas given in literature for the construction of restricted indexes were designed only for the imposition of a single restriction (zero, fixed, or proportional). This study presents both the theory and the methods of a simultaneous procedure for constructing indexes with single or multiple restriction(s). Numerical examples are given to verify the theoretical development and to demonstrate the implementation of the procedure. The simultaneous procedure presented brings the construction of various restricted indexes into a simple computational scheme. In addition to the use of the proposed procedure to handle multiple traits, it can be used to modify the growth curve of meat animals or the lactation curve of dairy animals, which generally requires simultaneous imposition of different restrictions on different stages of the curves. A misconception in the literature is that the variance of an index (b'Pb) is not equal to the covariance between an index and its net merit (b'Ga) when the index is a restricted one. This study showed generally that b'Pb and b'Ga are equal in the restricted or unrestricted case only when elements of b represent the original solutions from the index equations and are not equal when elements of b are expressed in terms of proportions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207