Response to selection and genotype–environment interaction in mink (<i>Neovison vison</i>) selected on ad libitum and restricted feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nielsen, V. H., Møller, S. H., Hansen, B. K. and Berg, P. 2011. Response to selection and genotype-environment interaction in mink (Neovison vison) selected on ad libitum and restricted feeding. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 231–237. Mink were selected for high November weight (AL line) and low feed conversion ratio (FC line) on ad libitum feeding and for high November weight on restricted feeding (RF line). After three generations of selection, the average estimated breeding value for November weight was 533, 326, and 150 g in males and 168, 82, and −85 g in females in the AL, RF, and FC lines. The breeding value for feed conversion ratio was −1.39, −0.84 and −0.68 kg feed kg−1 gain in males and −0.39, −0.31 and −0.23 kg feed kg−1 gain in females in the selection lines. In generation 4, the AL, RF and FC lines were tested on both ad libitum and restricted feeding. The estimated breeding value for November weight in males in the AL line (533 g) was significantly greater than that in the RF line (384 g) on ad libitum feeding. The corresponding values on restricted feeding were 297 and 326 g, respectively, which were not significantly different. This indicates genotype×environment interaction. In the AL line, selection improved feed conversion ratio by increased appetite. In the RF line, it was improved by increased feed utilization. Environmental sensitivity in males, estimated from breeding values for November weight was 236 g in the AL line and 58 g in the RF line suggesting that the RF line was more robust to changes in feeding conditions. A smaller litter size in the AL line (4.1) than in the RF line (5.6) indicates that selection for large weight affects reproduction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".