Selection for Milk Production and Persistency Using Eigenvectors of the Random Regression Coefficient Matrix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships of the eigenvectors of the additive genetic random regression coefficient matrix (K) to selection responses and to determine how many eigenvectors are necessary in the breeding goal to explain the variation. The construction of various eigenvector indexes was based on the K matrix estimated from test-day records of Japanese Holstein cattle. The first (leading) eigenvector index produced constant responses for each day of lactation, indicating that the first eigenvector is responsible for scaling the lactation curve without altering its shape. Daily genetic responses to the second eigenvector index increased linearly as DIM increased. Genetic responses to the third eigenvector index were negative in mid-lactation but were positive in early and late lactation (concave curve). Genetic responses to the fourth and fifth eigenvector indexes hovered around zero across the lactation. The results suggest that both second and third eigenvectors account for the change in the shape of the lactation curve and there is little utility of the fourth and fifth eigenvectors in improving lactation milk or persistency. When the goal is to increase lactation milk yield alone, the index based on the first eigenvector produced a similar response to the index based on all 5 eigenvectors. When the goal is to improve both lactation milk yield and persistency, the index based on the first 3 eigenvectors achieved more than 99.9% of the genetic response to an index based on all 5 eigenvectors. The advantage of an eigenvector index over conventional selection based on total lactation milk yield increases with increasing economic weight assigned to persistency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".