MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Including coefficients of inbreeding in BLUP evaluation and its effect on response to selection

2000· article· en· W1996250441 on OpenAlex
Hassan Mehrabani-Yeganeh, John P. Gibson, L.R. Schaeffer

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest linear unbiased predictionInbreedingSelection (genetic algorithm)StatisticsBiologyRange (aeronautics)MathematicsEconometricsPopulationDemographyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Stochastic simulation was used to study the effect on selection response of accounting for inbreeding versus ignoring it in the construction of the inverse of the relationship matrix used in mixed model equations (MME) to obtain BLUP of breeding values. Three different heritabilities of 0.10, 0.25, and 0.50 and two different family structures were used. Selection of replacement animals was based on best linear unbiased predictors (BLUP) of breeding values using an animal model. Average inbreeding coefficients (F) were in the range of 0.4–0.5 after 11 generations of selection. Even with such high inbreeding levels, no significant differences in selection responses were found between accounting or ignoring F in MME construction over the range of heritabilities and family structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it