MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008951628 · doi:10.1071/zo08065

Composition of the milk of the quokka (Setonix brachyurus)

2009· article· en· W2008951628 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel J. Miller, Roberta Bencini, Peter Hartmann

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsMiller Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLactationLactoseComposition (language)Food scienceBiologyAnimal scienceChemistryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the composition of the milk of the quokka between 70 and 300 days post partum. From 70 to 180 days, the mean concentration of protein in the milk was 63.5 ± 6.50 g L-1. The protein levels then began to increase, peaking at 120 g L-1 towards the end of lactation. The mean lipid and total solids content were 45.0 ± 6.50 and 175.0 ± 11.77 g L-1 from 70–180 days, increasing to 150 and 250 g L-1 after permanent pouch exit. In contrast, the total carbohydrate concentration of the milk decreased from 80 to 20 g L-1 at 150 days. The concentration of lactose started to decrease at 180 days from 30 to 10 g L-1, and galactose and glucose began to rise from 1 to 9 g L-1 and 0.5 to 4.0 g L-1, respectively. The milk lipid consisted mainly of long- and medium-chain fatty acids, with no short-chain fatty acids detected. The major fatty acids present were palmitic and oleic acids, followed by linoleic, trans-vaccenic and stearic acids. The percentage composition of oleic and stearic acids varied significantly during lactation. The composition of the milk of the quokka changed during lactation, coincident with the young reaching critical milestones in its development. This finding supports the hypothesis that the composition of the milk changes to meet the nutritional needs of the developing young.

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)0.000
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 score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207