Study of broiler chicken responses to dietary protein and lysine using neural network and response surface models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. In this study, neural network (NN) and response surface (RS) models were developed to investigate the response [average daily gain (ADG) and feed efficiency (FE)] of young broiler chickens to dietary protein and lysine. For this purpose, data on their responses to dietary protein and lysine were extracted from the literature and separate NN and RS models were constructed. 2. Comparison between the NN and RS models revealed higher accuracy of prediction with the NN models compared to the RS models. In terms of R (2) values, the NN models developed for both ADG (R (2) = 0.923) and FE (R (2) = 0.904) were far superior to the RS models (R (2) for ADG = 0.511; R (2) for FE = 0.67). This suggests that the NN models can serve as an alternative option to conventional regression approaches including use of RS models. 3. Optimisation of the NN models developed for response to protein and lysine showed that diets containing 220.7 (g/kg of diet) protein and 12.85 (g/kg of diet) lysine maximise ADG, whereas maximum FE is achieved with diets containing 241.3 and 13.12 (g/kg) protein and lysine, respectively. Based on the optimisation results, optimal dietary protein and lysine concentrations for maximum FE in broiler chickens during the starting period are higher than for ADG.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it