Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently there has been considerable interest in modeling individual test-day records (TDR) for genetic evaluation of dairy cattle as a replacement for the traditional use of estimated accumulated 305-d yields. Some advantages of test-day models (TDM) include the ability to account for environmental effects of each test day, the ability to model the trajectory of the lactation for individual genotypes or groups of animals, and the possibility of genetic evaluations for persistency of production. Also, the use of test-day models avoids the necessity of extending short lactations on culled animals and animals with records in progress. The disadvantages of TDM include computational difficulties associated with analyzing much larger datasets and the need to estimate many more parameters than in a traditional 305-d lactation model. Several different models have been proposed to model the trajectory of the lactation, including so-called "biological functions," various polynomials and character process models. At present, there is not universal agreement on which models to use in routine prediction of breeding values and better methods to compare models are desirable. Obtaining accurate estimates of the dispersion parameters to use in TDM remains a challenge. Methods used include a two-step procedure in which the dispersion parameters are estimated in a series of multivariate models followed by a reduction in order of fit using covariance functions, and a one-step procedure in which the parameters of TDM are estimated using restricted maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods in a random regression model. Further research should focus on including multiple lactation data and accounting for heterogeneity variance.
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".