MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049522279 · doi:10.4141/a00-110

Effects of altering growth curve and age at photostimulation in female broiler breeders. 2. Egg production parameters

2001· article· en· W2049522279 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
R.A. Renema, F.E. Robinson, P. R. Goerzen, M.J. Zuidhof

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPhotostimulationBiologyAnimal scienceBroilerReproductionGrowth curve (statistics)EcologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of differences in growth curve and age at photostimulation on egg production parameters and carcass traits at 61 wk of age in broiler breeder hens. Pullets were grown on one of three growth curves: STD (standard), LOW (150g lighter than STD) and HIGH (150 g heavier than STD ), and photostimulated at either 19 wk of age (19WK) or 21 wk of age (21WK). The egg production and BW of 36 birds per interaction were individually monitored from photostimulation to 61 wk of age. Individual, daily egg production records were analyzed for total, settable, and defective egg production, rate of production, sequence length, and egg weight. Eggs were incubated for determination of fertility, hatchability, and embryonic mortality parameters. All birds remaining at 61 wk of age were processed for determination of carcass and reproductive morphology. Unless otherwise stated, all significance was assessed at the P < 0.05 level.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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