MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3205285355 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab235.112

117 Nutrition Modelling: What Can the Pet Field Learn (or Steal) from Recent Directions in Other Species?

2021· article· en· W3205285355 on OpenAlexaff
J.L. Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Computer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Field (mathematics)Biochemical engineeringData scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineeringBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Nutrition modelling has been the cornerstone of feed formulation and diet optimization in animal production systems for decades. Since the 1970s and 1980s, mechanistic models of nutrient digestion, absorption, metabolism, growth and milk/egg production have been developed and implemented to (1) amass our cumulative biological knowledge and develop theories of regulation, (2) identify knowledge gaps, and (3) propose means to manipulate nutrient dynamics in the animal. At the nutrient and metabolite level, many commonalities exist and parallels found between species. In fact, several second generation models originate from other species or research fields, and many current/existing models may be advanced by examination and consideration of models developed in other species. Many such mathematical models are implemented in practice as ‘decision support systems’ or ‘opportunity analysis tools’, in order to examine a variety of (feeding or management) scenarios for their potential outcomes, with the goal of providing targeted nutrition, improving performance, reducing cost and minimizing environmental impact. More recently, partnering artificial intelligence/machine learning modelling methodologies with newly available big data streams has ushered in a new era of possibilities for data extraction and modelling in animal systems. The niche for this type of modelling in animal production appears to be (1) pattern recognition (e.g. disease detection, activity) and (2) strong predictive/forecasting abilities (e.g. bodyweight, milk, egg production). There also appears strong potential for these two seemingly divergent modelling approaches to be integrated – for example, in precision feeding systems, or in utilizing the abundance of sensor data to better drive or develop causal-pathway based mechanistic models. This talk will broadly review trends and advances in agriculture animal species modelling, and suggest what may be borrowed, stolen or serve as inspiration to advance nutrition models in companion species.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→