MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905227612 · doi:10.1111/jbg.12371

Reducing inbreeding rates with a breeding circle: Theory and practice in Veluws Heideschaap

2018· article· en· W2905227612 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J.J. Windig, Marjolein J. W. Verweij, J.K. Oldenbroek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsInbreedingBiologyDemographySociologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breeding circles allow genetic management in closed populations without pedigrees. In a breeding circle, breeding is split over sub-populations. Each sub-population receives breeding males from a single sub-population and supplies breeding males to one other sub-population. Donor-recipient combinations of sub-populations remain the same over time. Here, we derive inbreeding levels both mathematically and by computer simulation and compare them to actual inbreeding rates derived from DNA information in a real sheep population. In Veluws Heideschaap, a breeding circle has been in operation for over 30 years. Mathematically, starting with inbreeding levels and kinships set to zero, inbreeding rates per generation (ΔF) initially were 0.29%-0.47% within flocks but later converged to 0.18% in all flocks. When, more realistically, inbreeding levels at the start were high and kinship between flocks low, inbreeding levels immediately dropped to the kinship levels between flocks and rates more gradually converged to 0.18%. In computer simulations with overlapping generations, inbreeding levels and rates followed the same pattern, but converged to a lower ΔF of 0.12%. ΔF was determined in the real population with a 12 K SNP chip in recent generations. ΔF in the real population was 0.29%, based on markers to 0.41% per generation based on heterozygosity levels. This is two to three times the theoretically derived values. These increased rates in the real population are probably due to selection and/or the presence of dominant rams siring a disproportionate number of offspring. When these were simulated, ΔF agreed better: 0.35% for selection, 0.38% for dominant rams and 0.67% for both together. The realized inbreeding rates are a warning that in a real population inbreeding rates in a breeding circle can be higher than theoretically expected due to selection and dominant rams. Without a breeding circle, however, inbreeding rates would have been even higher.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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