MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027349708 · doi:10.4141/cjas2012-100

Heritability of beef tenderness at different aging times and across breed comparisons

2013· article· en· W2027349708 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrew Zwambag, Flávio S. Schenkel, I. B. Mandell, J. W. Wilton, Stephen P. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTendernessHeritabilityBreedCrossbreedAnimal sciencePopulationBiologyMeat tendernessBeef cattleVeterinary medicineMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Zwambag, A., Kelly, M., Schenkel, F., Mandell, I., Wilton, J. and Miller, S. 2013. Heritability of beef tenderness at different aging times and across breed comparisons. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 93: 307–312. The heritability of shear force at 7, 14 and 21 d was estimated from a crossbred population of beef cattle. The population consisted of approximately 1400 crossbred cattle that were predominantly the offspring of Angus, Simmental, Gelbvieh and Piedmontese sires bred to predominantly Angus and Simmental females. Significant breed effects on tenderness were found within each aging time and no effect of heterosis was detected. The heritability of shear force declined from 0.194 to 0.048 as aging time increased from 7 to 21 d, highlighting the effectiveness of aging as a tool to improve tenderness. The repeatability of shear force was also found to be moderate (0.53). However, as energy prices increase it may be attractive to reduce aging times, thus breeding animals that are more tender at shorter aging times would be beneficial. The heritability of tenderness found at shorter aging times would indicate that improvement in this trait would be possible within a population where phenotypes are available.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207