MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Accuracies of Genomic Prediction of Traits Associated with Lactation and Reproduction in Yorkshire and Landrace Sows

2015· report· en· W222629493 on OpenAlexafffund
Dinesh M. Thekkoot, B. Kemp, Max F. Rothschild, Graham Plastow, Jack C. M. Dekkers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGenome AlbertaAlberta Livestock and Meat Agency
KeywordsGenomic selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)BiologyBest linear unbiased predictionReproductionGeneticsEvolutionary biologyGenotypeMachine learningSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic prediction involves statistical methods to estimate the genetic merit of selection candidates based on genetic markers spaced across the genome. The benefit of genomic prediction depends on the accuracies with which we can predict the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) of selection candidates based on their marker genotypes. The objective of this study was to estimate the accuracies of GEBV for traits associated with lactation and reproduction in Yorkshire and Landrace sows. Across both breeds, genomic predictions had greater accuracy than pedigree-based predictions. This result suggests that accuracy of selection can be improved by genomic prediction and, thereby, increase selection response compared to pedigree based genetic evaluation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→