The effectiveness of genomic analysis of the breeding value of bulls
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study on the effectiveness of the genomic assessment of the breeding value of breeding bulls was conducted at JSC Udmurtskoe for Breeding Work. The object of the study was the bulls of the Holstein breed, which have the results of genomic evaluation carried out according to the methods of different countries (Canada, Russia). Bulls born in 2018-2019 were selected for analysis. The best, according to the results of the assessment according to the Canadian methodology, was the bull Chancellor 362351615 (estimate 2022 – milk yield +741 kg, the mass fraction of fat in milk +0.04%, protein +0.31%, revaluation 2024 – milk yield +563 kg, the mass fraction of fat in milk +0.01%, protein +0.30%). According to the results of the Russian assessment, the bull Lotus 6099 was the best in terms of a set of characteristics, its genomic forecast for milk yield was +640 kg, the mass fraction of fat in milk +0.27%, protein +0.07%. Comparing the actual productivity of the daughters of the evaluated breeding bulls with the genomic analysis, it can be noted that for most of the studied signs, it is the Russian forecast of breeding value that is confirmed.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it