Review: Recent advances in evaluation of bags made from different textiles used in situ ruminal degradation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Valente, T. N. P., Detmann, E. and Sampaio, C. B. 2015. Review: Recent advances in evaluation of bags made from different textiles used in situ ruminal degradation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 95: 493–498. Textile bags are used in the laboratory to analyze the indigestible contents (internal markers) of feedstuffs after in situ ruminal incubation. Information is needed on the rate and extent of degradation in the rumen using bags made from different materials. In situ techniques have been used extensively to measure the degradation of feedstuffs in the rumen. However, in situ techniques are prone to variability. This paper reviews the effects of particle size, the material from which bags are made, pore size, tensile strength of the bags, in situ estimation of the levels of indigestible compounds [indigestible dry matter (iDM), indigestible neutral detergent fiber (iNDF), and indigestible acid detergent fiber (iADF)], rumen degradation profiles, and the use of bags made from nylon (50 µm), F57 (Ankom®), and non-woven textile (100 g m−2).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".