MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6921966101 · doi:10.1139/cjas2011-083

Growth modeling of dairy heifers in Québec based on random regression

2012· article· en· W6921966101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom effects modelLinear regressionRegression analysisGrowth curve (statistics)Quadratic modelBody weightRegressionResidualBrown Swiss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cue, R. I., Pietersma, D., Lefebvre, D., Lacroix, R., Wade, K., Pellerin, D., de Passillé, A-M. and Rushen, J. 2012. Growth modeling of dairy heifers in Québec based on random regression. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 92: 33-47. A total of 144 006 weight (calculated from tape girth measurements) and height data records from Québec dairy heifers were analyzed using random regression to estimate growth curve parameters of Ayrshires, Brown Swiss and Holstein animals to permit prediction of individual heifer growth from 0 to 32 mo. There were, on average, 5.15 records per heifer (minimum 3 records, maximum 25 records). The body weight data were analyzed using linear and quadratic fixed and random regressions, with a power-of-the-mean (POM) function to model the residual variance. The POM was 1.2 for Holstein and Ayrshire and slightly less than 1 for Brown Swiss. Estimated body weight at 24 mo was 507, 564, 624 kg, for Ayrshires, Brown Swiss and Holstein, respectively. The height data were analyzed with a Brody, monomolecular non-linear growth curve model. Mature height was estimated to be 148 cm in both Holstein and Ayrshires, and 150 cm in Brown Swiss. Random regression models were shown to be able to predict individual growth, and can be incorporated in decision-support tools to help producers reducing the average age at first calving.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207