MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030037571 · doi:10.4141/cjas07112

Meta-analysis on the effects of lipid supplementation on methane production in lactating dairy cows

2008· article· en· W2030037571 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Maguy Eugène, Daniel I. Massé, J. Chiquette, C. Benchaar

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDry matterComposition (language)Milk productionAnimal scienceFood scienceLactationMilk fatChemistryBiologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A meta-analysis was conducted to statistically determine the effects of lipid supplementation on methane (CH 4 ) production, milk production, and milk composition of lactating dairy cows. For this purpose, a data base was built using seven scientific publications (25 diets) available in the literature and reporting the effects of lipid supplementation on CH 4 production, milk production, and milk composition. Lipid supplementation decreased (P < 0.05) dry matter intake (DMI) by 6.4% compared with control diets, whereas production of milk and 4% FCM and milk composition were not changed (P > 0.05). Lipid supplementation decreased (P < 0.05) CH 4 production by 9%, either expressed as MJ d -1 or as a percentage of gross energy intake (GEI), digestible energy intake (DEI), or metabolizable energy intake (MEI). This reduction was mainly a consequence of a decreased DMI. Key words: Meta-analysis, lipid supplementation, methane, dairy cows, lactating

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.030
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations125
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207