166 Livestock Resiliency: Concepts and Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetic improvement of health, welfare, efficiency, and fertility traits is challenging due to expensive and fuzzy phenotypes, the polygenic nature of traits, antagonistic genetic correlations to production traits and low heritabilities. Nevertheless, many organizations have introduced large-scale genetic evaluations for such traits in routine selection indexes. Medium and high-density arrays can be applied in genomic selection strategies to improve breeding value accuracy, and also in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to identify causative mutations responsible for economically important traits. Genomic information is particularly helpful when traits have low heritability. The objective here is to provide a framework for including health, welfare, efficiency, and fertility traits taken from large-scale genetic and genomic analyses and identifying areas of potential improvement in terms of trait definition and performance testing. General tendencies between trait groups confirmed that a number of moderate unfavourable correlations (+/-0.20 or higher) exist between economically important trait complexes and health, welfare, and fertility traits. A number of trait complexes were identified in which “closer-to-biology” phenotypes could provide clear improvements to routine genetic and genomic selection programs. Here we outline development of these phenotypes and describe their collection. While conventional variance component estimation methods have underpinned the genomic component of some traits of economic interest, performance testing for health, welfare, efficiency, and fertility traits remains an elusive goal for breeding programs. Although our results are encouraging, there is much to be done in terms of trait definition and obtaining better measures of physiological parameters for wide-scale application in breeding programs. Close collaboration between veterinarians, physiologists, and geneticists is necessary to attain meaningful advancement in such areas. We would like to acknowledge the support and funding from all national and international partners involved in the RDGP project through the Large Scale Applied Research Project program from Genome Canada
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".