PSIII-5 Predicting live weight using linear body measurements in growing beef calves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The objective of this study is to investigate how linear body measurements relate to and can be used to predict calf body weight using linear and machine learning models. To meet these objectives, a total of 103 Angus cross calves were enrolled in the study from wk 2 - 8. Calves were weighed and linear measurements were collected weekly, such as: poll to nose, width across the eyes (WE), width across the right ear, neck length, wither height, heart girth (HG), midpiece height (MH), midpiece circumference, midpiece width (MW), midpiece depth (MD), hook height, hook width, pin height, top of pin bones width (PW), width across the ends of pin bones, nose to tail body length, the length between the withers and pins, forearm to hoof, cannon bone to hoof. These measurements were taken using a commercial soft tape measure and calipers. To assess relationships between traits and to fit a model to predict BW, data were analyzed using the Weka (The University of Waikato, New Zealand) software using both linear regression (LR) and random forest (RF) machine learning models. The models were trained using a 10-fold cross-validation approach. The automatically derived LR model used 11 traits to fit the data to weekly BW (r2 = 0.97), where the traits with the highest coefficients were HG, PW and WE. The RF model improved further the BW predictions (r2= 0.98). Additionally, sex differences were examined. Although the BW model continued to fit well (r2 0.97), some of the top linear traits differed. The results of this study suggest that linear models built on linear measurements can accurately estimate body weight in beef calves, and that machine learning can further improve the model fit.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".