Mathematical modeling for digestible energy in animal feeds for tilapia=Modelagem matemática para energia digestivel de ingredientes de origem animal para tilápias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to formulate a mathematical model to estimate digestible energy in animal feeds for tilapia. Literature results were used of the proximate composition of crude protein, ether extract, mineral matter and gross energy, as well as digestible energy obtained in biological assays. The data were subjected to stepwise backward multiple linear regression. Path analysis was performed to measure the direct and indirect effects of each independent variable on the dependent one. To validate the model, data from independent studies and values obtained from a digestibility trial with juvenile Nile tilapia testing five meat and bone meals (MBM) were used, using the Guelph feces collecting system and chromium oxide (III) as an indicator. The obtained model is described below and cannot estimate digestible energy (DE) of animal origin: . The path coefficients were medium or low, the highest direct effect was from gross energy (0.529), while the highest indirect effect was from crude protein, through gross energy (0.439). <br><br>O objetivo deste estudo foi a formulação de equações para estimar a energia digestível em alimentos para a tilápia. Foram utilizados valores obtidos na literatura da composição centesimal em proteína bruta, extrato etéreo, matéria mineral e energia bruta (variáveis independentes), bem como a energia digestível (variável dependente) obtidos em ensaios biológicos. Os dados foram submetidos à regressão linear múltipla “stepwise backward”. Foi realizada análise de trilha para medir os efeitos diretos e indiretos de cada variável independente sobre a dependente. Para validar o modelo foram utilizados dados de estudos independentes, e os valores obtidos em um ensaio de digestibilidade com juvenis de tilápia do Nilo, testando-se cinco farinhas de carne e ossos (FCO), utilizando o sistema de coleta de fezes de Guelph e óxido de cromo (III) como indicador. A equação obtida não pode estimar os valores de energia digestível (ED) de origem animal e está descrito a seguir: . Os coeficientes de trilha obtidos tem valores de médios a baixo, sendo o maior efeito direto o da energia bruta (0,529), enquanto a proteina bruta apresentou o maior efeito indireto, via energia bruta (0,439).
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".