Comparison of models for genetic evaluation of survival traits in dairy cattle: a simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three models for the analysis of functional survival data in dairy cattle were compared using stochastic simulation. The simulated phenotype for survival was defined as a month after the first calving (from 1 to 100) in which a cow was involuntarily removed from the herd. Parameters for simulation were based on survival data of the Canadian Jersey population. Three different levels of heritability of survival (0.100, 0.050 and 0.025) and two levels of numbers of females per generation (2000 or 4000) were considered in the simulation. Twenty generations of random mating and selection (on a second trait, uncorrelated with survival) with 20 replicates were simulated for each scenario. Sires were evaluated for survival of their daughters by three models: proportional hazard (PH), linear multiple-trait (MT), and random regression (RR) animal models. Different models gave different ranking of sires with respect to survival of their daughters. Correlations between true and estimated breeding values for survival to five different points in a cow's lifetime after the first calving (120 and 240 days in milk after first, second, third and fourth calving) favoured the PH model, followed by the RR model evaluations. Rankings of models were independent of the heritability level, female population size and sire progeny group size (20 or 100). The RR model, however, showed a slight superiority over MT and PH models in predicting the proportion of sire's daughters that survived to the five different end-points after the first calving.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".