MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1918668959 · doi:10.4141/cjas-2015-100

Review: Recent advances in evaluation of bags made from different textiles used in situ ruminal degradation

2015· article· en· W1918668959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tiago Neves Pereira Valente, Edênio Detmann, Cláudia Batista Sampaio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenNeutral Detergent FiberIn situDry matterDegradation (telecommunications)Organic matterIncubationChemistryAnimal scienceEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryFood scienceBiologyFermentationBiochemistryComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.936

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207