MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064068324 · doi:10.1111/jbg.12149

Genetic management of Dutch golden retriever dogs with a simulation tool

2015· article· en· W2064068324 on OpenAlex
J.J. Windig, Kor Oldenbroek

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabrador RetrieverBiologyAnimal scienceZoologyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excessive inbreeding rates and small effective population sizes are an important problem in many populations of dogs. Proper genetic management of these populations can decrease the problem, and several measures are available. However, the effectiveness of these measures is not clear beforehand. Therefore, a simulation model was developed to test measures that aim to decrease the rate of inbreeding. The simulation program was used to evaluate inbreeding restriction measures in the Dutch golden retriever dog population. This population consisted of approximately 600 dams and 150 sires that produce 300 litters each year. The five most popular sires sire approximately 25% of the litters in a year. Simulations show that the small number of popular sires and their high contribution to the next generation are the main determinants of the inbreeding rates. Restricting breeding to animals with a low average relatedness to all other animals in the population was the most effective measure and decreased the rate of inbreeding per generation from 0.41 to 0.12%. Minimizing co-ancestry of parents was not effective in the long run, but decreased variation in inbreeding rates. Restricting the number of litters per sire generally decreased the generation interval because sires were replaced more quickly, once they met their restriction. In some instances, this lead to an increase in inbreeding rates because the next generations were more related. The simulation tool proved to be a powerful and educational tool for deciding which breeding restrictions to apply, and can be effective in different breeds and species as well.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.236 · 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