Estimation of Additive Genetic Variance Components in Aquaculture Populations Selectively Pedigreed by DNA Fingerprinting
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
Abstract A method to estimate genetic variance components in populations partially pedigreed by DNA fingerprinting is presented. The focus is on aquaculture, where breeding procedures may produce thousands of individuals. In aquaculture populations the individuals available for measurement will often be selected, i.e. will come from the upper tail of a size‐at‐age distribution, or the lower tail of an age‐at‐maturity distribution etc. Selection typically occurs by size grading during grow‐out and/or choice of superior fish as broodstock. The method presented in this paper enables us to estimate genetic variance components when only a small proportion of individuals, those with extreme phenotypes, have been identified by DNA fingerprinting. We replace the usual normal density by appropriate robust least favourable densities to ensure the robustness of our estimates. Standard analysis of variance or maximum likelihood estimation cannot be used when only the extreme progeny have been pedigreed because of the biased nature of the estimates. In our model‐based procedure a full robust likelihood function is defined, in which the missing information about non‐extreme progeny has been taken into account. This robust likelihood function is transformed into a computable function which is maximized to get the estimates. The estimates of sire and dam additive variance components are significantly and uniformly more accurate than those obtained by any of the standard methods when tested on simulated population data and have desirable robustness properties.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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