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 OpenAlexaboutno aff
Asep Anang, N. Mielenz, L. Schüler

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Poultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207