MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992098687 · doi:10.4141/cjas09072

Evaluation of NRC (2000) model energy requirement and DMI equation accuracy and precision for wintering beef cows in western Canada

2010· article· en· W1992098687 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
H. C. Block, Jodi Lynn Bourne, H.A. Lardner, J. J. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceIce calvingDry matterConcordance correlation coefficientBeef cattleMathematicsAccuracy and precisionConceptusStandard deviationStatisticsPregnancyLactationBiologyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three years of winter feeding trials using 90 Angus cows (15 pens of six cows) fed typical western Canadian wintering diets formulated to stage of pregnancy were used to evaluate National Research Council (NRC 2000) energy requirement and dry matter intake (DMI) equation accuracy and precision. Data collection included pen DMI, individual cow weights, body condition scores, calving dates and weights, and daily environmental temperature. Diet energy density was estimated from nutrient analysis of composited weekly feed samples. Equation evaluations compared observed and predicted DMI and conceptus corrected average daily gain (ADG) for the second and third trimesters using regression, means comparison, concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and total deviation index (TDI) methods. Across all 3 yr, second trimester DMI was over-predicted (P < 0.01) with low precision (CCC = 0.24, TDI90 = n/a) using actual environmental conditions, but not (P = 0.34) when assuming thermal neutral (TN) conditions, although precision remained low (CCC = 0.25, TDI90 = 1.91 kg d-1). Third trimester DMI over the 3 yr was also over-predicted (P < 0.01) with low precision (CCC = 0.12, TDI90 = 1.57 kg d-1) using actual environmental conditions, but was largely under-predicted (P < 0.01) with lower precision (CCC = -0.01, TDI90 = 2.34 kg d-1) when assuming TN conditions. Across all 3 yr, second trimester ADG was largely under-predicted (P < 0.01) with low precision (CCC = 0.50, TDI90 = 0.58 kg) using actual environmental conditions, but over-predicted (P < 0.01) with similar precision (CCC = 0.51, TDI90 = 0.50 kg) when assuming TN conditions. Third trimester ADG predictions using actual environmental conditions were inaccurate (P < 0.01) with low precision (CCC = 0.20, TDI90 = 0.38 kg) using actual conditions and lower precision (CCC = -0.01, TDI90 = n/a) when assuming TN conditions where ADG was over-predicted (P < 0.01). These results indicate a lack of accuracy and precision with the current NRC (2000) model energy requirement and DMI equations that was not addressed by assuming TN conditions. Future research should be targeted at alternate DMI equations and refinements to maintenance and gain requirements.Key words: NRC evaluation, nutrient requirements, wintering beef cows

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207