MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021736074 · doi:10.22358/jafs/66312/2010

Effect of diets with different contents of sunflower meal without or with exogenous enzymes supplementation on gastrointestinal tract response of growing turkeys

2010· article· en· W2021736074 on OpenAlexaff
Jerzy Juśkiewicz, J. Jankowski, A. Lecewicz, B. A. Slominski, Zenon Zduńczyk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal and Feed Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMealCanolaRapeseedBiologyGlucosinolateStarchGastrointestinal tractSunflowerFood scienceAnimal scienceBrassicaBiochemistryBotanyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of a different dietary content of sunflower meal (SFM) and the efficiency of an non-starch polysaccharide (NSP)-degrading enzyme preparation on growth and gut function of young turkeys. A total of 1512 one-day-old male turkey poults were randomly assigned to 8 dietary treatments, with 7 pens per treatment and 27 birds per pen. Experimental diets with a different content of SFM (0, 7, 14 and 21%; SFM Q , SFM 7 , SFM )4 and SFM 21 groups, respectively) were administered in two variants, with and without NSP-degrading enzymes (E+ and E Q treatments, respectively). Diets fed to the turkeys for 8 weeks were isonitrogenous and isocaloric, but they differed substantially with regard to crude fibre content (in average 2.98, 3.97, 4.64 and 5.64% in the SFM 0 , SFM 7 , SFM l4 and SFM 21 groups, respectively). The enzyme preparation applied to a diet caused a tendency towards lower ileal viscosity (P=0.099) and a significant decrease in caecal total volatile fatty acids concentration,

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 score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal and Feed SciencesSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207