Calidad de la canal del cordero lechal. Evaluación de dos métodos de estimación subjetiva del contenido de músculo, grasa y hueso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las canales se clasificaron de acuerdo con los metodos de valoracion subjetiva de la conformacion y del estado de engrasamiento de la canal de Colomer-Rochef. Segun el metodo de estimacion de la conformacion se establecen dos grupos de canales (grados 1 y 2 de la escala) que no se diferencian en ninguna de las 25 variables de composicion tisular de la canal y de las tres piezas estudiadas: espalda, pierna y costillar. Se establecen dos grupos de engrasamiento (grados 1 y 2 de la escala), que se diferencian significativamente (P < 0, 05) en 13 de las 25 variables. El analisis de la varianza de las variables de composicion tisular muestra un efecto muy significativo de los grupos establecidos segun la escala de engrasamiento para las variables relacionadas con el porcentaje de grasa subcutanea y total de la canal y de las piezas. Tambien existe un efecto significativo para el porcentaje de hueso. Los resultados permiten concluir que el metodo de evaluacion del estado de engrasamiento de la canal predice mejor la composicion tisular de la canal y de las tres piezas. El metodo de estimacion de la conformacion no discrimina entre las canales utilizadas en este estudio, que quedan incluidas en su mayoria en el grupo de menor conformacion.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".