Additive, dominance, and epistatic loss effects on preweaning weight gain of crossbred beef cattle from different Bos taurus breeds1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Co)variance components, direct and maternal breed additive, dominance, and epistatic loss effects on preweaning weight gain of beef cattle were estimated. Data were from 478,466 animals in Ontario, Canada, from 1986 to 1999, including records of both purebred and crossbred animals from Angus, Blonde d'Aquitaine, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Hereford, Limousin, Maine-Anjou, Salers, Shorthorn, and Simmental breeds. The genetic model included fixed direct and maternal breed additive, dominance, and epistatic loss effects, fixed environmental effects of age of the calf, contemporary group, and age of the dam x sex of the calf, random additive direct and maternal genetic effects, and random maternal permanent environment effects. Estimates of direct and maternal additive genetic, maternal permanent environmental and residual variances, expressed as proportions of the phenotypic variance, were 0.32, 0.20, 0.12, and 0.52, respectively. Correlation between direct and maternal additive genetic effects was -0.63. Breed ranking was similar to previous studies, but estimates showed large SE. The favorable effects of direct and maternal dominance (P < 0.05) on preweaning gain were equivalent to 1.3 and 2.3% of the phenotypic mean of purebred calves, respectively. The same features for direct and maternal epistatic loss effects were -2.2% (P < 0.05) and -0.1% (P > 0.05). The large SE of breed effects were likely due to multicollinearity among predictor variables and deficiencies in the dataset to separate direct and maternal effects and may result in a less reliable ranking of the animals for across breed comparisons. Further research to identify the causes of the instability of estimates of breed additive, dominance, and epistatic loss genetic effects, and application of alternative statistical methods is recommended.
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".