MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413066339 · doi:10.28983/asj.y2025i6pp51-56

The effectiveness of genomic analysis of the breeding value of bulls

2025· article· en· W4413066339 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Viktorovna Isupova, Elena Achkasova, M. I. Vasilyeva

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Agrarian Scientific Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Industry and Aquatic Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreedAnimal scienceYield (engineering)BiologyProductivityBiotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Agrarian Scientific JournalSame topicFood Industry and Aquatic BiologyFrench-language works237,207