A Combined Analysis in Complementary Progeny Tests: Effects on breeding value accuracies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Complementary progeny tests allow for simultaneously ranking parents for their general combining ability (GCA) and within-family forward selection. To do this, progeny tests are established with different types of genetic entries (i.e., half-sib and full-sib seedlings, respectively), and different experimental designs. This study proposes a combined analysis of the GCA and full-sib (FS) tests using the mixed model approach to predict simultaneously the breeding values of grandparents, parents, full-sib families and offspring on the same scale. Moreover, a first order autoregressive spatial mixed model for the GCA tests was also implemented in the combined analysis. Our empirical study in coastal Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) shows that additional information provided from relatives and the overlap genetic entry among GCA and FS tests via the proposed combined analysis, improves the accuracies of breeding values compared to the non-combined analysis. The improvements in the accuracies of breeding values for backward and forward selections were generally modest. Spatial and combined analyses gave slightly better results than the non-spatial combined model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".