Identifying data anomalies in milk component measurements from partial-day milking records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-quality milk and milk component data are crucial for accurate genetic evaluations and effective herd management. However, data recording errors can compromise the validity of downstream decisions. In a recent study, we proposed using intraclass correlation coefficients as a herd-level metric to assess the consistency of milk components from single milkings, thereby effectively identifying farms with potential data quality concerns. A key challenge, however, is whether potentially erroneous records can be detected at the cow-day level. In this study, we introduce a novel metric-individual-level intraclass correlations-to assess data consistency at the cow-day level and evaluate its performance against 3 commonly used anomaly-detection methods. We further introduce a 2-step approach to estimate percentile thresholds for flagging outliers. The results demonstrate the superior performance of this new metric over the conventional univariate and multivariate methods in identifying anomalies in correlated partial daily milk component data. In addition, the negative impact of data shuffling was examined. Together, these methods provide robust and practical tools for detecting suspect milk component records at the individual cow-day level.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".