MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116927973 · doi:10.17221/4008-cjas

Genetic parameters for test-day model with random regressions for production traits of Czech Holstein cattle

2005· article· en· W2116927973 on OpenAlexafffund
Ludmila Zavadilová, J. Jamrozik, L.R. Schaeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueCzech Journal of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeritabilityLactationRandom effects modelGibbs samplingStatisticsTraitAnimal scienceBiologyBreedHerdMixed modelHolstein CattleMathematicsGenetic correlationDairy cattleGenetic variationGeneticsInternal medicinePregnancyBayesian probabilityMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple-lactation random regression model was applied to test-day records of milk, fat and protein yields in the first three lactations of the Czech Holstein breed. Data included 9 583 cows, 89 584, 44 207 and 11 266 test-day records in the first, second and third lactation, respectively. Milk, fat and protein in the first three lactations were analysed separately and in a multiple-trait analysis. Linear model included herd-test date, fixed regressions within age-season class and two random effects: animal genetic and permanent environment modelled by regressions. Gibbs sampling method was used to generate samples from marginal posterior distributions of the model parameters. The single- and multiple-trait models provided similar results. Genetic and permanent environmental variances and heritability for particular days in milk were high at the beginning and at the end of lactation. The residual variance decreased throughout the lactation. The resulting heritability ranged from 0.13 to 0.52 and increased with parity.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCzech Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207