MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W227939827 · doi:10.2527/2003.81122950x

Investigation of breeding strategies to increase the probability that German shepherd dog and Labrador retriever dog guides would attain optimum size1

2003· article· en· W227939827 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S K Helmink, R.D. Shanks, Eldin A. Leighton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Medicine and Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabrador RetrieverAnimal scienceGerman Shepherd DogSelection (genetic algorithm)BiologyOffspringBody weightHeritabilityGeneticsPregnancyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An optimum-sized dog guide weighs 18 to 32 kg and measures 53 to 64 cm in height at the withers when mature body size is attained. Effects of selection index with and without restrictions, independent trait selection, directional selection, stabilizing selection, and negative assortative mating were modeled using data from German shepherd dogs and Labrador retrievers raised by the Seeing Eye, Inc., Morristown, NJ from 1979 to 1997. The selection goals were to decrease mature weight and mature height in German shepherd dogs and to decrease mature weight and increase mature height in Labrador retrievers. Mature weights were recorded for 1,333 German shepherd dog offspring and their 69 dams and 17 sires, and 1,081 Labrador retriever offspring and their 51 dams and 13 sires. Mature heights also were recorded for offspring and parents, including 871 German shepherd dogs from 70 dams and 15 sires, and 793 Labrador retrievers from 40 dams and 13 sires. Selecting on mature weight alone produced the highest aggregate genetic-economic gain for German shepherd dogs compared with the selection indices with and without restrictions, generating a 2.10-kg decrease in mature weight and a correlated 0.36-cm decrease in mature height. In Labrador retrievers, selecting for mature height alone produced the highest aggregate genetic-economic gain but caused an increase in mature weight. Weighting the two traits equally but in the opposite direction without restrictions was the only index that produced the desired effect of decreasing mature weight and increasing mature height in Labrador retrievers. Response to selection for one generation of directional selection for a single trait included a 0.50-kg decrease in mature weight for German shepherd dogs, a 0.59-kg decrease in mature weight for Labrador retrievers, a 0.18-cm decrease in mature height for German shepherd dogs, and a 0.91-cm increase in mature height for Labrador retrievers. Increasing the percentage of dogs attaining optimum size may decrease the cost of production for the Seeing Eye, Inc., because fewer dogs would need to be raised and trained to provide assistance to the same number of blind individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicVeterinary Medicine and SurgeryFrench-language works237,207