MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3012163797 · doi:10.6000/1927-520x.2020.09.04

Short Communication: Heritability Estimation of Birth Weight of Swamp Buffalo in Sabah, Malaysia

2020· article· en· W3012163797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sang-Moon Soh, Mohd Shahrom Salisi, M. Zamri-Saad, Yong Meng Goh, Muhammad Sanusi Yahaya, Hani Syahida Zulkafli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwampHeritabilityEstimationBiologyGeographyBiotechnologyEcologyEngineeringGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data on birth weight of Swamp buffalo calves that were born between 2015 and 2017 were collected and analyzed for this study. The objective was to estimate the effect of heritability and to evaluate the influence of environmental factors on the birth weight of swamp buffalo calves. The heritability was estimated using parent-offspring regression method while the environmental factors were measured using linear regression analysis. The average birth weight for swamp buffalo calves was 31.5 ± 5.33kg. It was significantly (p<0.05) affected by the age of dam and the year of birth but the body weight of the dam and the sex of calves did not significantly (p>0.05) influence the birth weight. The heritability of birth weight was estimated to be 0.29, which is low. Therefore, environmental and herd management factors seem to play a larger role in birth weight than genetics. The low estimated heritability obtained from this work indicates that improvement through selection may not be feasible.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo Science→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→