Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for carcass merit traits in <scp>A</scp>ngus and <scp>C</scp>harolais beef cattle
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for carcass merit traits including hot carcass weight, longissimus muscle area (REA), carcass average backfat thickness (AFAT), lean meat yield (LMY) and carcass marbling score (CMAR) was evaluated based on 543 Angus and 400 Charolais steers genotyped on the Illumina BovineSNP50 Beadchip. For the genomic prediction within Angus, the average accuracy was 0.35 with a range from 0.32 (LMY) to 0.37 (CMAR) across different training/validation data-splitting strategies and statistical methods. The within-breed genomic prediction for Charolais yielded an average accuracy of 0.36 with a range from 0.24 (REA) to 0.46 (AFAT). The across-breed prediction had the lowest accuracy, which was on average near zero. When the data from the two breeds were combined to predict the breeding values of either breed, the prediction accuracy averaged 0.35 for Angus with a range from 0.33 (REA) to 0.39 (CMAR) and averaged 0.33 for Charolais with a range from 0.18 (REA) to 0.46 (AFAT). The prediction accuracy was slightly higher on average when the data were split by animal's birth year than when the data were split by sire family. These results demonstrate that the genetic relationship or relatedness of selection candidates with the training population has a great impact on the accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values under the density of the marker panel used in this study.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it