Degree of connectedness among groups of centrally tested beef bulls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The degree of connectedness among test groups (TG) of bulls tested in central evaluation stations from 1988 to 2000 in Ontario, Canada, was evaluated using the following methods: average prediction error variance of the difference between estimated breeding values (PEVD), variance of estimated differences between test group effects (VED), connectedness rating (CR), and total number of direct genetic links between test groups (GLT). The model used in the analysis included the effects of breed and TG (fixed) and animal (random). PEVD was assumed the most adequate measure of connectedness and results from the alternative methods VED, CR, and GLT were compared against it. Models to predict the average PEVD of pairs of TG and the average PEVD of each TG with all other TG on the basis of VED, CR, and GLT were developed. Results from all measures of connectedness indicated an unfavorable trend in the degree of connectedness after 1994. The average PEVD of pairs of TG can be better predicted on the basis of the model that includes GLT. The average PEVD of each TG with all other TG can be better predicted on the basis of models that include either CR or GLT. Connectedness among TG of centrally tested beef bulls can be adequately assessed for specific pairs of TG or overall for each TG with all other TG using GLT. Key words: Accuracy, central test, genetic evaluation, harmonic mean
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".