Illustration of the maternal animal model used for genetic evaluation of beef cattle1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
National cattle evaluation programs for weaning weight in most beef breed associations involve implementation of the maternal animal model to predict direct and maternal EPD. With this model, direct breeding values are predicted for all animals with records or pedigree ties to animals with records, or both. Even though maternal genetic value is expressed only in animals that become dams, these effects are transmitted by all parents and inherited from parents by all animals, leading to maternal breeding values being predicted for all animals as well. A small example data set was simulated involving 12 parents, 8 nonparents, and 13 animals with weaning weight records. The pedigree was developed to include paternal and maternal half-sib families, full-sibs, and some inbreeding, similar to field populations of beef cattle. Assembly of the mixed model equations and solutions for the maternal animal model are illustrated explicitly to assist animal breeding students in their understanding of the properties of the maternal animal model and to explicitly implement the model. Model parameters and moments, fixed contemporary group solutions, adjustment of breeding values for merit of mates, interpretation of maternal permanent environmental effect solutions, and alternatives for the assembly of the equations are shown. This example should lead to increased student and producer understanding of genetic improvement programs for weaning weight in beef cattle.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".