Methods for calculating the breeding values of missing traits and their comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to calculate the breeding values (BVs) of traits missing in a selection index. Different traits can be evaluated within the breeding programs of given countries. The BV of a trait can be calculated based on genetic correlations with other traits. Similarly, the BV of a missing trait can be calculated for imported bulls. Two methods of calculation were used. Method A was based on a regression of BVs. Method B was based on performing a de-regression of BVs and their retroactive calculation. Both of these methods were tested using a Czech and a Canadian database of BVs for Holstein bulls. The Czech database of Holstein bulls contained 766 bulls and the Canadian database 851. Two calculations were performed for bulls with low reliability of estimated BVs, the first calculation with their genetic correlation matrix and the second with a genetic correlation matrix created from a set of bulls with high reliability of BVs. These newly calculated BVs (CBVs) were then compared with the national BVs (NBVs) using correlation coefficients. The highest correlations were achieved with high reliability bulls when all traits were included into the calculation (34 evaluated traits). The correlations of these bulls averaged 0.82, with an average standard deviation of 0.19. The lowest correlations were found when low reliability bulls were included and the genetic correlation matrix from the high reliability bulls was applied. That average correlation was 0.74 and standard deviation 0.25. When only 15 traits were evaluated in the model, the average correlation for all sets was 0.68 with standard deviation of 0.28. These results show that calculating the BV of a missing trait is possible using both methods. Method B was slightly more accurate in its prediction.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".