Response of broiler chickens to <i>Lactobacillus</i> and<i>Bifidobacterium</i> probiotic strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of two Lactobacillus and two Bifidobacterium probiotic strains (given daily in an amount of 10 9 -10 10 live cells per bird, in water) as well as an antibiotic, avilamycin (8 mg/kg of diet), were determined.The live body weight of chickens in groups receiving probiotics or avilamycin (2625-2665 g) was higher than in the control group (2564 g), however the differences were not significant.The feed conversion ratio was significantly better in most of the investigated groups in comparison with the control.Chemical, physicochemical and sensory evaluation of the meat did not show significant differences between groups.The relatively high population count of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus in the control group (~10 8 cfu/g of caecal contents) was slightly lower in comparison with the investigated groups (10 8 -10 9 cfu/g).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".