Investigation of genotype x environment interactions for weaning weight for Herefords in three countries.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the possibility of genotype x environment interactions for weaning weight (WWT) between different regions of the United States (US) and between Canada (CA), Uruguay (UY), and US for populations of Hereford cattle. Original data were composed of 487,661, 102,986, and 2,322,722 edited weaning weight records from CA, UY, and US, respectively. A total of 359 sires were identified as having progeny across all three countries; 240 of them had at least one progeny with a record in each environment. The data sets within each country were reduced by retaining records from herds with more than 500 WWT records, with an average contemporary group size of greater than nine animals, and that contained WWT records from progeny or maternal grand-progeny of the across-country sires. Data sets within each country were further reduced by randomly selecting among remaining herds. Four regions within US were defined: Upper Plains (UP), Cornbelt (CB), South (S), and Gulf Coast (GC). Similar sampling criteria and common international sires were used to form the within-US regional data sets. A pairwise analysis was done between countries and regions within US (UP-CB vs S-GC, UP vs CB, and S vs GC) for the estimation of (co)variance components and genetic correlation between environments. An accelerated EM-REML algorithm and a multiple-trait animal model that considered WWT as a different trait in each environment were used to estimate parameters in each pairwise analysis. Direct and maternal (in parentheses) estimated genetic correlations for CA vs UY, CA vs US, US vs UY, UP-CB vs S-GC, UP vs CB, and S vs GC were .88 (.84), .86 (.82), .90 (.85), .88 (.87), .88 (.84), and .87 (.85), respectively. The general absence of genotype x country interactions observed in this study, together with a prior study that showed the similarity of genetic and environmental parameters across the three countries, strongly indicates that a joint WWT genetic evaluation for Hereford cattle could be conducted using a model that treated the information from CA, UY, and US as a single population using single population-wide genetic parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".