MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488138635 · doi:10.2527/2003.81123218x

A survey of methods of analysis for minerals in feedstuffs1,2

2003· review· en· W1488138635 on OpenAlexaff
Milan Ihnat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicAnalytical chemistry methods development
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron activation analysisMass spectrometryChemistryElemental analysisEnvironmental chemistryKjeldahl methodAtomic absorption spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)RadiochemistryNitrogenChromatographyInorganic chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide range of minerals occurs in feedstuffs as naturally occurring and purposely added elements, as well as by adventitious contamination. These mineral elements can generally be classified as nutritionally essential major elements, nutritionally essential minor and trace elements, and those regarded as toxic or with an essential/toxic duality. A survey is presented of methods used for the determination of major, minor, and trace elements in feedstuffs and related biological materials. Currently available methods include the following: atomic absorption spectrometry, atomic emission spectrometry, mass spectrometry, neutron activation analysis, x-ray emission spectrometry, molecular light absorption spectrometry, molecular fluorometry, electrochemistry, Kjeldahl method (nitrogen), combustion elemental analysis, volumetry, ion chromatography, and gravimetry. Available reference, routine, official, unofficial, and recommended methods are reviewed as a basis for recommendations of methods most suitable for feedstuffs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.505
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnalytical chemistry methods developmentFrench-language works237,207