Comparison of nonlinear functions to describe lactation curves for cumulative milk production in buffalo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the suitability of different growth functions (linear, sinusoidal, Gompertz, Schumacher and Richards) to fit cumulative milk production data from buffalo cows. Cumulative milk production at each day in milk was calculated from two published datasets reporting (i) fortnightly test-day milk yield records of the first lactation of Murrah buffalo that had calved during 1977-2012 and (ii) the first lactation records of Jaffarabadi buffalo collected from history-cum-pedigree registers for each quinquennium between 1991 and 2010. Each function was fitted to the lactation curves using nonlinear regression procedures. The Richards and sinusoidal equations provided the smallest root mean square error values, Akaike's and Bayesian information criteria and, therefore, the best fit for the cumulative lactation curves for milk yield. The Richards equation appeared to provide the most accurate estimate of the cumulative milk production at peak milk yield. Sinusoidal and flexible classical growth functions are appropriate to describe cumulative milk production curves and estimate lactation traits in buffalo.
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 | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".