MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Overview of genetic evaluation in dairy cattle

2004· article· en· W2030646784 on OpenAlexaff
Kenji Togashi, Ching Y. Lin, Kunio Yokouchi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Science Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest linear unbiased predictionSireSelection (genetic algorithm)StatisticsTraitRandom effects modelMathematicsCovarianceProgeny testingEconometricsComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT It is costly and time‐consuming to carry out dairy cattle selection on a large experimental scale. For this reason, sire and cow evaluations are almost exclusively based on field data, which are highly affected by a large array of environmental factors. Therefore, it is crucial to adjust for those environmental effects in order to accurately estimate the genetic merits of sires and cows. Index selection is a simple extension of the ordinary least squares under the assumption that the fixed effects are assumed known without error. The mixed‐model equations (MME) of Henderson provide a simpler alternative to the generalized least squares procedure, which is computationally difficult to apply to large data sets. Solution to the MME yields the best linear unbiased estimator of the fixed effects and the best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) of the random effects. In an animal breeding situation, the random effects such as sire or animal represent the animal's estimated breeding value, which provides a basis for selection decision. The BLUP procedure under sire model assumes random mating between sires and dams. The genetic evaluation procedure has progressed a long way from the dam‐daughter comparison method to animal model, from single trait to multiple trait analysis, and from lactational to test‐day model, to improve accuracy of evaluations. Multiple‐trait evaluation appears desirable because it takes into account the genetic and environmental variance‐covariance of all traits evaluated. For these reasons, multiple‐trait evaluation would reduce bias from selection and achieve a better accuracy of prediction as compared to single‐trait evaluation. The number of traits included in multiple‐trait evaluation should depend upon the breeding goal. Recent advances in molecular and reproductive technologies have created great potential for quantitative geneticists concerning genetic dissection of quantitative traits, and marker‐assisted genetic evaluation and selection.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Science JournalSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207