MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1949366555 · doi:10.1002/zoo.21240

Near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) analyses of nutrient composition and condensed tannin concentrations in carolina willow (<i>Salix caroliniana</i>)

2015· article· en· W1949366555 on OpenAlex
Shana R. Lavin, Kathleen E. Sullivan, Stuart C. Wooley, Koni Stone, Scott C. Russell, Eduardo V. Valdes

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZoo Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWillowBiologyNear infrared reflectance spectroscopyComposition (language)TanninCondensed tanninNutrientReflectivityBotanyWoody plantEcologyProanthocyanidinNear-infrared spectroscopyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iron overload disorder has been described in a number of zoo-managed species, and it has been recommended to increase the tannin composition of the diet as a safe way to minimize iron absorption in these iron-sensitive species. The goal of this study was to examine the potential of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy (NIRS) as a rapid and simple screening tool to assess willow (Salix caroliniana) nutrient composition (crude protein: CP; acid detergent fiber: ADF; neutral detergent fiber: NDF; lignin, gross energy: GE) and condensed tannin (CT) concentrations. Calibration equations were developed by regression of the lab values from 2 years using partial least squares on n = 144 NIRS spectra to predict n = 20 independent validation samples. Using the full 2-year dataset, good prediction statistics were obtained for CP, ADF, NDF, and GE in plant leaves and stems (r(2 ) > 0.75). NIRS did not predict lignin concentrations reliably (leaves r(2) = 0.52, stems r(2) = 0.33); however, CTs were predicted moderately well (leaves r(2) = 0.72, stems r(2) = 0.67). These data indicate that NIRS can be used to quantify several key nutrients in willow leaves and stems including concentrations of plant secondary compounds which, depending on the bioactivity of the compound, may be targeted to feed iron-sensitive browsing animals.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.268 · 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