Effects of nonrandom parental selection on estimation of variance components
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Bayesian estimation via Gibbs sampling, REML, and Method R were compared for their empirical sampling properties in estimating genetic parameters from data subject to parental selection using an infinitesimal animal model. Models with and without contemporary groups, random or nonrandom parental selection, two levels of heritability, and none or 15% randomly missing pedigree information were considered. Nonrandom parental selection caused similar effects on estimates of variance components from all three methods. When pedigree information was complete, REML and Bayesian estimation were not biased by nonrandom parental selection for models with or without contemporary groups. Method R estimates, however, were strongly biased by nonrandom parental selection when contemporary groups were in the model. The bias was empirically shown to be a consequence of not fully accounting for gametic phase disequilibrium in the subsamples. The joint effects of nonrandom parental selection and missing pedigree information caused estimates from all methods to be highly biased. Missing pedigree information did not cause biased estimates in random mating populations. Method R estimates usually had greater mean square errors than did REML and Bayesian estimates.
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".