MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033423449 · doi:10.1021/jf034244p

Deoxynivalenol Removal from Barley Intended as Swine Feed through the Use of an Abrasive Pearling Procedure

2003· article· en· W2033423449 on OpenAlexaff
James D. House, C. M. Nyachoti, D. Abramson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationChemistryAnimal scienceMycotoxinAbrasiveAgronomyFood scienceBiologyMaterials scienceMetallurgyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Samples of naturally contaminated hulled barley, with varying deoxynivalenol concentrations, were subjected to an abrasive type dehulling procedure. The remaining grain fractions were analyzed for weight remaining (%), deoxynivalenol (ppm), crude protein (%CP), neutral detergent fiber (%NDF), ash (%ASH), gross energy (GE; kcal/kg), and calculated digestible energy values (DE; kcal/kg). Following the initial 15 s of pearling, 85% of the grain mass remained. Additional pearling resulted in a linear decline of grain mass. Following 15 s of pearling, the grain contained 34% of the initial deoxynivalenol content, irrespective of the initial level of contamination. Further pearling resulted in continued significant (p < 0.05) reductions in the percent of deoxynivalenol remaining to a level of 7.9% after 120 s but with significant losses in grain mass. Pearling can serve as an effective means of reducing the deoxynivalenol content of barley, with improvements in nutrient levels. However, the need to reduce the deoxynivalenol content of contaminated barley to less than 1 ppm for swine will necessitate the removal of a significant amount of the grain mass for heavily contaminated samples.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207