Linear and <scp>P</scp>oisson models for genetic evaluation of tick resistance in cross‐bred <scp>H</scp>ereford x <scp>N</scp>ellore cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cattle resistance to ticks is measured by the number of ticks infesting the animal. The model used for the genetic analysis of cattle resistance to ticks frequently requires logarithmic transformation of the observations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the predictive ability and goodness of fit of different models for the analysis of this trait in cross-bred Hereford x Nellore cattle. Three models were tested: a linear model using logarithmic transformation of the observations (MLOG); a linear model without transformation of the observations (MLIN); and a generalized linear Poisson model with residual term (MPOI). All models included the classificatory effects of contemporary group and genetic group and the covariates age of animal at the time of recording and individual heterozygosis, as well as additive genetic effects as random effects. Heritability estimates were 0.08 ± 0.02, 0.10 ± 0.02 and 0.14 ± 0.04 for MLIN, MLOG and MPOI models, respectively. The model fit quality, verified by deviance information criterion (DIC) and residual mean square, indicated fit superiority of MPOI model. The predictive ability of the models was compared by validation test in independent sample. The MPOI model was slightly superior in terms of goodness of fit and predictive ability, whereas the correlations between observed and predicted tick counts were practically the same for all models. A higher rank correlation between breeding values was observed between models MLOG and MPOI. Poisson model can be used for the selection of tick-resistant animals.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".