A generic multi-stage compartmental model for interpreting gas production profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gas production technique has become a key tool in feed evaluation and rumen fermentation studies. The value of the technique relies on modelling experimental data to obtain estimates of rumen degradation parameters. One of the first models used to describe gas production profiles was the simple exponential equation, although it has some important limitations when applied to gas production curves: (1) the intercept is positive, (2) only fits diminishing returns profiles, and (3) models gas per se (i.e. fails to link gas production to substrate degradation). The first limitation is overcome mathematically by re-parameterisation, making the intercept zero. The second limitation can be resolved by introducing a discrete lag to mimic sigmoidicity or by using sigmoidal functions. The third limitation is overcome by modelling substrate degradation from gas production profiles, so that equations are derived from mechanistic principles, and all parameters have biological meaning. The link between substrate degradation and gas production allows for extent of substrate degradation in the rumen to be determined for a given passage rate. Several multi-phase models have been proposed, but these were originally derived empirically and assumptions made a posteriori. Based on the conceptual difference between stage and phase, a multi-stage approach is proposed, a generic model presented and the accompanying equations derived. A two-stage model with four pools (substrate, intermediate products, fermentation end-products and by-products such as fermentation gas) is illustrated. An interpretation of the breakdown of polysaccharides to monosaccharides (first stage) and the fermentation of these monosaccharides to yield gas and other products (VFA and microbial matter) (second stage) is presented. Gas production profiles were used to demonstrate fitting the two-stage model and to consider its ability to describe gas production curves.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".