MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1825934270 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20074625

Comparison of 3M Petrifilm Staph Express Count Plates, and 3M Petrifilm Rapid Coliform Count Plates with Standard Bacteriology of Bovine Milk

2007· article· en· W1825934270 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi Ann Wallace, Jean‐Philippe Roy, Émile Bouchard, Luc DesCôteaux, Serge Messier, Denis DuTremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUdderSomatic cell countMastitisBacteriologyBovine milkHerdEnumerationFood scienceCalifornia mastitis testMathematicsVeterinary medicineMedicineMicrobiologyBiologyLactationIce calvingBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolation and identification of mastitis pathogens is a fundamental step in milk quality control programs. There is a need for an inexpensive and rapid bacteriologic test that allows veterinarians as well as dairy producers to make real-time decisions to better manage udder health in their herds. Petrifilm plates may fill this gap. Petrifilm plates are ready-to-use culture media that are used primarily in the food industry. The objectives were 1) Evaluate the test characteristics of the Petrifilm Staph express Count Plates (STX) for identification of S. aureus from milk. Milk samples were taken from cows a) in the first 30 days in milk, b) with high somatic cell count (SCC) during lactation, c) with clinical mastitis. 2) Evaluate the test characteristics of the Petrifilm Rapid Coliform Count Plates (RCC) for identification of coliforms from cases of clinical mastitis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207