Mathematical modelling in animal nutrition: a centenary review
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
SUMMARY A centenary review presents an opportunity to ponder over the processes of concept development and give thought to future directions. The current review aims to ascertain the ontogeny of current concepts, underline the connection between ideas and people and pay tribute to those pioneers who have contributed significantly to modelling in animal nutrition. Firstly, the paper draws a brief portrait of the use of mathematics in agriculture and animal nutrition prior to 1925. Thereafter, attention turns towards the historical development of growth modelling, feed evaluation systems and animal response models. Introduction of the factorial and compartmental approaches into animal nutrition is noted along with the particular branches of mathematics encountered in various models. Furthermore, certain concepts, especially bioenergetics or the heat doctrine , are challenged and alternatives are reviewed. The current state of knowledge of animal nutrition modelling results mostly from the discernment and unceasing efforts of our predecessors rather than serendipitous discoveries. The current review may stimulate those who wish for greater understanding and appreciation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it