MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100901986 · doi:10.1017/s0016672302006055

Marker-assisted estimation of quantitative genetic parameters in rainbow trout, <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>

2003· article· en· W2100901986 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair J. Wilson, Gavin J. McDonald, Hooman K. Moghadam, Christophe M. Herbinger, Moira M. Ferguson

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPairwise comparisonRainbow troutStatisticsMarkov chain Monte CarloMathematicsRegressionContrast (vision)CovarianceEstimatorBiologyComputer scienceBayesian probabilityArtificial intelligenceFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of quantitative genetic parameters conventionally requires known pedigree structure. However, several methods have recently been developed to circumvent this requirement by inferring relationship structure from molecular marker data. Here, two such marker-assisted methodologies were used and compared in an aquaculture population of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Firstly a regression-based model employing estimates of pairwise relatedness was applied, and secondly a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedure was employed to reconstruct full-sibships and hence an explicit pedigree. While both methods were effective in detecting significant components of genetic variance and covariance for size and spawning time traits, the regression model resulted in estimates that were quantitatively unreliable, having both significant bias and low precision. This result can be largely attributed to poor performance of the pairwise relatedness estimator. In contrast, genetic parameters estimated from the reconstructed pedigree showed close agreement with ideal values obtained from the true pedigree. Although not significantly biased, parameters based on the reconstructed pedigree were underestimated relative to ideal values. This was due to the complex structure of the true pedigree in which high numbers of half-sibling relationships resulted in inaccurate partitioning of full-sibships, and additional unrecognized relatedness between families.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.882

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenetics ResearchSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207