MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007538398 · doi:10.1080/03079450020016878

Relationship between egg size and subgroup J avian leukosis virus in eggs from broiler breeders

2000· article· en· W2007538398 on OpenAlexaff
J. L. Spencer, Maria Chan, Susan A. Nadin‐Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Pathology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroilerBiologyAvian leukosisVirologyVeterinary medicineVirusAnimal scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hatching eggs from three broiler breeder flocks that had experienced losses from myeloid leukosis were tested for infection with avian leukosis virus of subgroup J (ALV-J). Sufficient eggs were positive in two flocks to relate infection to egg weight. Allantoic fluid, embryonic tissue and yolk were collected after 18 days of incubation. The albumen and allantoic fluid were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for group-specific (gs) antigen and all specimens were inoculated onto cell cultures to test for virus by immunofluorescence assay. Virus detected was identified as ALV-J by polymerase chain reaction techniques. The percentage of eggs that tested positive for gs antigen and virus was higher in those that weighed under 60 g than in heavier eggs (P < 0.01). In one flock, antibody to ALV-J was detected by ELISA in yolk from 14 and 43% of the eggs that tested positive or negative for virus, respectively. Testing the same eggs for antigen, virus and antibody should be useful for establishing the status of infection of the hens.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations19
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian PathologySame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207