Comparison of Random Regression Models with Legendre Polynomials and Linear Splines for Production Traits and Somatic Cell Score of Canadian Holstein Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A random regression model with both random and fixed regressions fitted by Legendre polynomials of order 4 was compared with 3 alternative models fitting linear splines with 4, 5, or 6 knots. The effects common for all models were a herd-test-date effect, fixed regressions on days in milk (DIM) nested within region-age-season of calving class, and random regressions for additive genetic and permanent environmental effects. Data were test-day milk, fat and protein yields, and SCS recorded from 5 to 365 DIM during the first 3 lactations of Canadian Holstein cows. A random sample of 50 herds consisting of 96,756 test-day records was generated to estimate variance components within a Bayesian framework via Gibbs sampling. Two sets of genetic evaluations were subsequently carried out to investigate performance of the 4 models. Models were compared by graphical inspection of variance functions, goodness of fit, error of prediction of breeding values, and stability of estimated breeding values. Models with splines gave lower estimates of variances at extremes of lactations than the model with Legendre polynomials. Differences among models in goodness of fit measured by percentages of squared bias, correlations between predicted and observed records, and residual variances were small. The deviance information criterion favored the spline model with 6 knots. Smaller error of prediction and higher stability of estimated breeding values were achieved by using spline models with 5 and 6 knots compared with the model with Legendre polynomials. In general, the spline model with 6 knots had the best overall performance based upon the considered model comparison criteria.
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 | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".