MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157320938 · doi:10.3390/ani11051316

Multiple Country Approach to Improve the Test-Day Prediction of Dairy Cows’ Dry Matter Intake

2021· article· en· W3157320938 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anthony Tedde, Clément Grelet, Phuong N. Ho, J.E. Pryce, Dagnachew Hailemariam, Zhiquan Wang, Graham Plastow, Nicolas Gengler, Éric Froidmont, Frédéric Dehareng, Carlo Bertozzi, M.A. Crowe, Hélène Soyeurt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSFonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
KeywordsDry matterMathematicsAnimal scienceStatisticsLactoseCross-validationDairy cattleMean squared errorRegression analysisLinear regressionArtificial neural networkFood scienceBiologyMachine learningComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We predicted dry matter intake of dairy cows using parity, week of lactation, milk yield, milk mid-infrared (MIR) spectrum, and MIR-based predictions of bodyweight, fat, protein, lactose, and fatty acids content in milk. The dataset comprised 10,711 samples of 534 dairy cows with a geographical diversity (Australia, Canada, Denmark, and Ireland). We set up partial least square (PLS) regressions with different constructs and a one-hidden-layer artificial neural network (ANN) using the highest contribution variables. In the ANN, we replaced the spectra with their projections to the 25 first PLS factors explaining 99% of the spectral variability to reduce the model complexity. Cow-independent 10 × 10-fold cross-validation (CV) achieved the best performance with root mean square errors (RMSECV) of 3.27 ± 0.08 kg for the PLS regression and 3.25 ± 0.13 kg for ANN. Although the available data were significantly different, we also performed a country-independent validation (CIV) to measure the models’ performance fairly. We found RMSECIV varying from 3.73 to 6.03 kg for PLS and 3.69 to 5.08 kg for ANN. Ultimately, based on the country-independent validation, we discussed the developed models’ performance with those achieved by the National Research Council’s equation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207