MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1487112092

Gross postmortem and histologic examination findings from abortion losses and calf mortalities in western Canadian beef herds.

2010· article· en· W1487112092 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard I. Kennedy, Leigh B Rosengren, Colleen M Pollock, Edward Ted G Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueEurocarne: La revista internacional del sector cárnico · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNecrosisPneumoniaMyopathyHistopathologyPerforationAbortionHerdCattle DiseasesPathologyPhysiologyInternal medicinePregnancyVeterinary medicineBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production losses from abortions, stillbirths, and early calf mortality were described for the 2002 calf crop in 203 beef herds in western Canada. A total of 1689 calves were examined. A summary diagnosis was reported for 64% of aborted calves, 78% of stillborn calves, 88% of neonatal calves, and 94% of the calves > 3 d of age. Diagnoses for aborted calves included: thyroid gland lesions, pneumonia, developmental anomalies, placentitis, and myocardial necrosis or myopathy. For stillborn calves, diagnostic findings included: dystocia, thyroid gland lesions, myocardial necrosis or myopathy, developmental anomalies, and skeletal myopathy or necrosis. The most common diagnoses for neonatal calves (≤ 3 d) were: pneumonia, skeletal myopathy or necrosis, myocardial necrosis or myopathy, accident or trauma, and septicemia. For older calves (3 d to 3 mo), the most common diagnoses included: starvation, abomasal ulcer or perforation, enteritis or colitis, pneumonia, and intestinal volvulus, obstruction, or perforation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations41
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEurocarne: La revista internacional del sector cárnicoSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207