Prediction of the effect of enzymes on chick performance when added to cereal-based diets: use of a modified log-linear model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previous study demonstrated that a log equation could be used to predict the relationship between the amount of a crude enzyme added to a diet and chick performance. The objective of the current study was to determine if a modification of the original equation, in conjunction with a computer program, would overcome some of its limitations. The modified equation was Y = A + B log (CX + 1), where Y is the estimated performance value; A is the intercept that represents the performance without enzyme supplementation; B, the slope of the equation (performance change per log unit of an enzyme in the diet), is a measure of an enzyme efficacy; C is an amplified factor; and X is the amount of enzyme in the diet. The results demonstrated that the new model more accurately predicted chick performance than that of the original equation with correlations (r) between chick performance and amount of different enzymes added to the diet ranging from r = 0.80 to 0.99 (P < 0.05). In addition, the same trends were found when the model was used to assess the efficacy of a given enzyme added to corn-, wheat-, barley-, and rye-based diets or for combinations of two dietary components (rye and wheat). The model proposed in this study provides a new means of assessing the overall efficacy of an enzyme preparation. This model could be routinely used by enzyme and livestock producers to establish the best combination of different cereals and enzymes so as to maximize net returns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".