Evaluation of Growth Curve Models for Body Weight in American Mink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modelling the growth curves of animals is important for optimizing the management and efficiency of animal production; however, little is known about the growth curves in American mink (Neovison vison). The study evaluated the performances of four three-parameter (Logistic, Gompertz, von Bertalanffy, and Brody), four four-parameter (Richards, Weibull, Bridges, and Janoscheck) and two polynomial models for describing the growth curves in mink. Body weights were collected from the third week of life to the week 31 in 738 black mink (373 males and 365 females). Models were fitted using the nls and nlsLM functions in stats and minpack.lm packages in R software, respectively. The Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were used for model comparison. Based on these criteria, Logistic and Richards were the best models for males and females, respectively. Four-parameter models had better performance compared to the other models except for Logistic model. The estimated maximum weight and mature growth rate varied among the models and differed between males and females. The results indicated that males and females had different growth curves as males grew faster and reached to the maximum body weight later compared to females. Further studies on genetic parameters and selection response for growth curve parameters are required for development of selection programs based on the shape of growth curves in mink.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".