MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genetic evaluation of dairy cattle for conformation traits using random regression models

2000· article· en· W2616260949 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Uribe, L.R. Schaeffer, J. Jamrozik, T.J. Lawlor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Rural AffairsU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsUdderCovariateRandom effects modelRumpStatisticsTraitHerdMixed modelRegression analysisMathematicsBiologyAnimal scienceMastitisMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Random regression models were applied to eight conformation traits (i.e. stature, rump angle, thurl width, rear leg set, rear udder width, rear udder height, udder depth, and fore udder attachment) of Holstein cows from the northeastern United States. Covariates for fixed and random regressions included age and age‐squared for six of the traits, and two additional covariates were included for rear udder width and rear udder height. Other effects in the model were herd—year‐classifier and months in milk. Fixed covariates were nested within year of birth of the cow. Variance components were estimated using Bayesian theory and Gibbs sampling procedure. Estimated breeding values from the random regression models were compared to two single trait models. The first model utilized only the first classification record of the cow in first lactation, and the second model utilized all classifications of the cow in a simple repeatability model. Additive genetic merit for conformation traits changed with the age of the animal. Some traits were affected by age more than others. The single trait, single record model and the simple repeatability model were not appropriate in predicting breeding values at mature ages for rear udder width and rear udder height.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Breeding and GeneticsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207