Application of robust procedures for estimation of breeding values in multiple‐trait random regression test‐day model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robust procedures for estimation of breeding values were applied to multiple-trait random regression test-day (TD) model to reduce the influence of outliers on inferences. Robust estimation methods consisted of correcting selected observations (defined as outliers) in the process of solving mixed-model equations in such a way that 'new' observations gave residuals (actual observation minus predicted) within k residual standard deviations for a given day in milk in 305-day lactation. Data were 980,503 TD records on 63,346 Canadian Jersey cows. Milk, fat, protein and somatic cell score in the first three lactations were analysed jointly in the model that included fixed herd-TD effect and regressions within region-age-season of calving, and regressions with random coefficients for animal genetic and permanent environmental effects. All regressions were orthogonal polynomials of order 4. Robust procedures for k = 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 2.75 and 3.0 were contrasted with the regular best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) method in terms of numbers and distributions of outliers, and estimated breeding values (EBV) of animals. Distributions of outliers were similar across traits and lactations. Early days in milk (from 5 to 15) were associated with larger frequency of outliers compared with the remaining part of lactation. Several, computationally simple, robust methods (for k > 2.0) reduced the influence of outlier observations in the model and improved the overall model performance. Differences in rankings of animals from robust evaluations were small compared with the regular BLUP method. No clear associations between changes in EBV (rankings) of top animals from different methods and the occurrence of outliers were detected.
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 | 0.020 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".