Estimation of additive and nonadditive genetic variances in Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais by Method R.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parameters for direct and maternal dominance were estimated in models that included non-additive genetic effects. The analyses used weaning weight records adjusted for age of dam from populations of Canadian Hereford (n = 467,814), American Gelbvieh (n = 501,552), and American Charolais (n = 314,552). Method R estimates of direct additive genetic, maternal additive genetic, permanent maternal environment, direct dominance, and maternal dominance variances as a proportion of the total variance were 23, 12, 13, 19, and 14% in Hereford; 27, 7, 10, 18, and 2% in Gelbvieh; and 34, 15, 15, 23, and 2% in Charolais. The correlations between direct and maternal additive genetic effects were -0.30, -0.23, and -0.47 in Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais, respectively. The correlations between direct and maternal dominance were -0.38, -0.02, and -0.04 in Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais, respectively. Estimates of inbreeding depression were -0.20, -0.18, and -0.13 kg per 1% of inbreeding for Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais, respectively. Estimates of the maternal inbreeding depression were -0.01, -0.02, and -0.02 kg, respectively. The high ratio of direct dominance to additive genetic variances provided some evidence that direct dominance effects should be considered in beef cattle evaluation. However, maternal dominance effects seemed to be important only for Hereford cattle.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".