Best-fitting growth curves of the von Bertalanffy-Pütter type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A large body of literature aims at identifying growth models that fit best to given mass-at-age data. The von Bertalanffy-Pütter differential equation is a unifying framework for the study of growth models. PROBLEM: The most common growth models used in poultry science literature fit into this framework, as these models correspond to different exponent-pairs (e.g., Brody, Gompertz, logistic, Richards, and von Bertalanffy models). Here, we search for the optimal exponent-pairs (a and b) amongst all possible exponent-pairs and expect a significantly better fit of the growth curve to concrete mass-at-age data. METHOD: Data fitting becomes more difficult, as there is a large region of nearly optimal exponent-pairs. We therefore develop a fully automated optimization method, with computation time of about 1 to 2 wk per data-set. For the proof of principle, we applied it to literature data about 217 male meat-type chickens, Athens Canadian Random Bred, that were reared under controlled conditions and weighed 28 times during a time span of 170 D. RESULTS: We compared 2 methods of data fitting, least squares using the sum of squared errors (SSE), which is common in literature, and a variant using the sum of squared log-errors SSElog. For these data, the optimal exponent-pairs were (0.43, 4.06) for SSE = 2,208.6 (31% improvement over literature values for the residual standard deviation) and (0.89, 0.93) for SSElog = 0.04599. Both optimal exponents were clearly distinct from the exponent-pairs of the common models in literature. This finding was reinforced by considering the region of nearly optimal exponents. DISCUSSION: We explain, why we recommend using SSElog for data fitting and we discuss prognosis, where data from the first 8 wk of growth would not be enough.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".