MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010797414 · doi:10.1080/00071660120103657

Monthly model for genetic evaluation of laying hens II. Random regression

2002· article· en· W2010797414 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Poultry Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSireCovariateHeritabilityRestricted maximum likelihoodStatisticsRandom effects modelRank correlationBest linear unbiased predictionMathematicsMixed modelRegression analysisSpearman's rank correlation coefficientTraitRegressionLinear regressionMaximum likelihoodAnimal scienceBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)MedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. We investigated the use of monthly production records for genetic evaluation of laying hens, derived from a test day model with random regression in dairy cattle and compared it with other models. 2. Records of 6450 hens, daughters of 180 sires and 1335 dams, were analysed using a model with restricted maximum likelihood (REML): traits considered were monthly and cumulative egg production. Five models were studied: (1) random regression with covariates derived from the regression of Ali and Schaeffer (Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 67: 637-644, 1987) (RRMAS), (2) random regression with covariates derived from quartic polynomial (RRMP4), (3) fixed regression with covariates derived from Ali and Schaeffer (FRM), (4) multiple trait (MTM) and (5) cumulative (CM). 3. The models were compared on the basis of Spearman rank correlations of individual breeding values and sire breeding values estimated from subsets of full-sib split data. The hens (about 10% per generation) which ranked highest on their estimated breeding values from different models were compared phenotypically with their full records. 4. The estimates of heritability resulting from RRMP4 were biased upward from the estimates obtained from MTM, so this model was discarded. The heritabilities for monthly productions from RRMAS and MTM showed a similar pattern. They were high for the 1st month of production, decreased to their lowest value at about month 5 of production and increased again to the end of lay. 5. Spearman rank correlations between animal breeding values estimated by monthly models (RRMAS, FRM and MTM) were high, between 0.91 and 0.98, whereas those between estimates of monthly models and CM were lower, from 0.85 to 0.87. The correlations estimated either from intermittent months of measurements (odd vs even months) or full records were generally high, from 0.93 to 0.99. Information from odd months of production could be sufficient for cost-efficient recording schemes. The RRMAS generally had the highest correlation of sire breeding values between subsets of full-sib records, followed by MTM, RM and CM. Monthly models selected hens with higher productivity than the cumulative model. 6. In conclusion, genetic evaluation based on monthly production may be better than using cumulative production and RRMAS appeared to be the best among the models tested here.

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)0.000
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 score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.196 · 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