Evaluation of Simmental carcass EPD estimated using live and carcass data1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to compare carcass EPD predicted using yearling live animal data and/or progeny carcass data, and to quantify the association between the carcass phenotype of progeny and the sire EPD. The live data model (L) included scan weight, ultrasound fat thickness, longissimus muscle area, and percentage of intramuscular fat from yearling (369 d of age) Simmental bulls and heifers. The carcass data model (C) included hot carcass weight, fat thickness, longissimus muscle area, and marbling score from Simmental-sired steers and cull heifers (453 d of age). The combined data model (F) included live animal and carcass data as separate but correlated traits. All data and pedigree information on 39,566 animals were obtained from the American Simmental Association, and all EPD were predicted using animal model procedures. The genetic model included fixed effects of contemporary group and a linear covariate for age at measurement, and a random animal genetic effect. The EPD from L had smaller variance and range than those from either C or F. Further, EPD from F had highest average accuracy. Correlations indicated that evaluations from C and F were most similar, and L would significantly (P < 0.05) re-rank sires compared with models including carcass data. Progeny (n = 824) with carcass data collected subsequent to evaluation were used to quantify the association between progeny phenotype and sire EPD using a model including contemporary group, and linear regressions for age at slaughter and the appropriate sire EPD. The regression coefficient was generally improved for sire EPD from L when genetic regression was used to scale EPD to the appropriate carcass trait basis. The EPD from C and F had similar linear associations with progeny phenotype, although EPD from F may be considered optimal because of increased accuracy. These data suggest that carcass EPD based on a combination of live and carcass data predict differences in progeny phenotype at or near theoretical expectation.
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".