MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980341492 · doi:10.4141/a99-042

Seasonal intake determination in reproductive wapiti hinds (<i>Cervus</i> <i>elaphus</i> <i>canadensis</i>) using n-alkane markers

2000· article· en· W1980341492 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jay V. Gedir, Robert J. Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsLactationAnimal scienceForageBiologyCervus elaphusDry matterGestationNutrientSeasonal breederAgronomyPregnancyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used bite-count and double n-alkane ratio techniques to estimate dry matter intake (DMI) of wapiti hinds on heavily or lightly grazed pastures, during important reproductive phases (early/late gestation, peak/late lactation). Despite seasonal differences in phytomass between pastures, differences in DMI were not significant and results were pooled for seasonal comparisons. The annual nadir of intake occurred in late gestation (3.44 ± 0.17 kg DM d −1 ) despite the nutrient demands of the rapidly growing foetus. Spring weight loss (−2.9 ± 0.8 g kg −0.75 d −1 ) reflected the inability of hinds to graze sufficiently to meet these nutritional requirements, even though herbage quality was at its seasonal peak. Although energy requirements peaked during early lactation, hinds were able to consume enough high quality forage (5.38 ± 0.25 kg DM d −1 ) to achieve compensatory growth (12.5 ± 1.4 g kg −0.75 d −1 ). Continued elevated intakes through late summer (5.32 ± 0.41 kg DM d −1 ) and autumn (4.41 ± 0.24 kg DM d −1 ) ensured that hinds regained adequate condition for the breeding season. Key words: Intake, n-alkanes, lactation, gestation, wapiti

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)0.000
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 score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207