MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2051145440 · doi:10.4141/a05-011

Effects of methods of collection and sample preparation on the concentrations of B-vitamins in ruminal fluid of dairy cows

2005· article· en· W2051145440 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D.E. Santschi, J. Chiquette, R. Berthiaume, J. J. Matte, A. F. Mustafa, C.L. Girard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryCannulaRumenChromatographyFood scienceVitaminAnimal scienceBiochemistryBiologyFermentationSurgeryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ruminal fluid was collected from dairy cows using three methods: (1) a stomach tube, or directly through the ruminal cannula with (2) a syringe screwed to a stainless tube covered by a fine metal mesh; or (3) a rubber tube connected to a vacuum pump. Fluid samples were either acidified to disrupt bacterial membranes or centrifuged to remove the bacterial fraction. B-vitamin concentrations were higher in the acidified than in the centrifuged fluid, while the collection method had only a limited effect. Results of this study strongly suggest that B-vitamin concentration in ruminal fluid is not a good indicator of their synthesis, and that the bacterial fractions should probably be considered. Key words: B-vitamins, ruminal fluid, dairy cow

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→