MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Models for Genetic Evaluation of Scrotal Circumference in Red Angus

2008· article· en· W2181739781 on OpenAlexaff
D.H. Crew, R. M. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Professional Animal Scientist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCircumferenceBivariate analysisAnimal scienceGenetic correlationBeef cattleBiologyRestricted maximum likelihoodAnimal modelCorrelation coefficientVeterinary medicineMaximum likelihoodStatisticsGenetic variationMathematicsMedicineGeneticsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growth and scrotal records were obtained to estimate age of dam and age at measurement adjustment factors for yearling scrotal circumference in Red Angus bulls (n = 40,865), and to estimate genetic parameters. The linear partial regression coefficient for age at measurement was 0.0323 cm/d. The recommended factors were 0.70, 0.37, 0.08, and 0.30cm to adjust the scrotal circumference records of yearling Red Angus bulls out of 2-, 3-, 4-, and ≥ 10-yr old cows to a mature (5 to 9 yr) age of dam equivalent. Adjusted 365-d scrotal circumference (SC365) records were fitted to animal models including direct genetic and from 0 to 3 maternal effects; however, maternal effects were negligible. Her-itability for SC365 was 0.51 ± 0.02 from a model including only direct genetic effects. Bivariate models were used to estimate parameters for SC365 with birth (BWT) and 205-d BW, and 160-d postweaning gain (PWG). Estimated genetic correlations (± 0.03) were 0.10, 0.13, and 0.13 for SC365 with direct effects on BWT, 205-d BW, and PWG, respectively. Maternal BWT had a low genetic correlation (0.05 ± 0.05) with SC365, but the genetic correlation between maternal 205-d BW and SC365 was moderate (0.35 ± 0.04). In addition to the recommendations for adjustment of scrotal circumference, these results suggest that direct genetic effects on SC365 could be used in selection programs, and that increasing selection for SC365 would be concomitant with growth up to yearling age and not antagonistic to maternal ability in Red Angus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Professional Animal ScientistSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207