MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002789284 · doi:10.1093/ps/84.7.1108

Mathematical characterization of broiler carcass yield dynamics

2005· article· en· W2002789284 on OpenAlexaff
M.J. Zuidhof

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGompertz functionMathematicsBroilerYield (engineering)Linear modelInflection pointStatisticsCarcass weightAnimal scienceBody weightBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modeling of broiler chicken supply-chain economics depends on robust biological models of growth and yield of broiler chickens. In this paper, 8 dynamic nonlinear broiler carcass and carcass part yield models were evaluated statistically for their suitability for predicting weights of carcass parts. The analysis employed 4 sigmoidal (S) models (Gompertz, modified Gompertz, Richards, and Lopez) describing carcass part weight as a function of age, as well as 3 diminishing returns (DR) models (Lopez, Mitscherlich, and log linear), and a log-linear proportional yield (PY) model, which describe carcass part yield and weight, respectively, as a proportion of feather- and fat-free empty body mass (FFEBM). Three S models with a flexible point of inflection were better able to predict carcass part weights than a fixed point of inflection Gompertz model and, in general, the DR models. The log-linear models were the only models that converged in 100% of the evaluations. The allometric PY model predicted weights for most carcass parts with the smallest degree of error and with substantially less bias than the DR log-linear model. Estimates of the coefficients for the log-linear PY model are included for 12 key carcass parts. Estimates of carcass chemical composition are presented for the log-linear PY model.

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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.624

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207