Development of an Optimal Index to Improve Lactation Yield and Persistency with the Least Selection Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to have improvement in both lactation milk yield and persistency. Modification of the lactation curve requires severe restrictions on selection criteria designed to simultaneously improve both milk yield and persistency. As a result, manipulating the lactation curve for improved persistency requires higher selection intensity than unrestricted selection based on 305-d estimated breeding value (EBV). Our study showed that for a given restriction imposed on both milk EBV and persistency, it is possible to derive different indexes to achieve this selection constraint with different degrees of selection intensity. Of the class of indexes that meets the same restriction, it is preferable to choose the index that requires the least selection intensity because it is easier to achieve the selection goal with the use of an index that requires a lower selection intensity than a higher selection intensity. An optimal index based on random regression (RR) coefficients was developed to achieve the prespecified stage genetic gains with the lowest selection intensity. A conversion equation was derived to convert the selection index based on RR coefficients to the selection index based on stage EBV with the lowest selection intensity. A numerical example is provided to demonstrate the procedures developed compared with conventional selection based on 305-d milk EBV.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".