MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998417550 · doi:10.4141/a00-063

Comparison of the effects of monensin and decoquinate on feed intake and growth performance in dairy calves up to weaning age

2000· article· en· W1998417550 on OpenAlexaffvenue
R. Bagg, G. Vessie, J Wilson, P. Dick

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCoccidia and coccidiosis research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphGreo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonensinAnimal scienceWeaningFeed conversion ratioBiologyWeight gainDairy cattleBody weightEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Holstein heifer calves (88) received 50 mg kg−1 of feed containing either monensin or decoquinate for 42 d prior to weaning. There were no significant differences between treatments in feed intake, weight gain or height gain, suggesting that monensin and decoquinate have equivalent effects on these parameters in pre-weaned dairy calves. Key words: Monensin, decoquinate, dairy calves

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicCoccidia and coccidiosis researchFrench-language works237,207