Estimates of genetic parameters among body condition score and fertility traits in first-parity Canadian cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper summarizes a series of research examining the relative efficiency and profitability of various beef cattle production systems.This type of research has historically been very common in the social sciences, particularly economics, where scientists rely on population data and population research tools and techniques rather than controlled experiments.Much of the particular research referenced in this paper has been conducted using a combination of production and financial data from a sample of actual beef producers.A variety of specific techniques are available, and more than one technique may need to be utilized in the same study to provide answers to the questions at hand.For example, it is quite common to use one technique to quantify the magnitude of relative efficiency (inefficiency) exhibited within a given data set, and then use another technique to identify factors that contribute to that relative efficiency and their magnitudes.The study of important economic outcomes (efficiency, profits, costs, etc.) lends itself particularly well to this type of analysis.Given appropriate data, a wide variety of beef industry research questions can be addressed using similar techniques.We discuss specific data required to conduct various types of population analysis, and suggest potential sources and appropriate collection techniques.In addition, we provide examples of previous and ongoing research projects to illustrate the wide variety of issues that can be addressed using alternative techniques.Finally, we address potential shortcomings and other issues that need to be considered when collecting data and performing economic analyses of beef production systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".