Serum fatty acid analysis and digestibility study in the Vancouver Island marmot (<i>Marmota vancouverensis</i>) fed a captive diet supplemented with α‐linolenic acid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mammals that hibernate must rely on endogenous lipid reserves to survive over winter. This study was conducted to compare the difference in serum fatty acid composition, dietary intake, and apparent digestibility in the Vancouver Island marmot (N = 6) fed the Metro Zoo lagomorph diet supplemented with α‐linolenic acid [C(18:3) n‐3 (α‐LA)]. The experiment was designed as a 3 × 3 Latin square with three 17‐day collection periods. The test diets contained 12.16, 14.85, and 17.05% α‐LA as a percentage of fatty acids in the diet supplied through the addition of flaxseed oil (∼53% α‐LA). Across treatments, dry matter intake (g/d), dry matter digestibility, apparent fat digestibility, and apparent neutral detergent fiber digestibility did not differ significantly (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in serum α‐LA concentration between the three levels of α‐LA supplementation. However, this supplementation did elevate serum α‐LA, eicosapentaenoic acid [C20:5 (n‐3)], and docosahexaenoic acid [C22:6 (n‐3)] levels compared with feeding the basal zoo lagomorph diet (P < 0.05). Thus, supplementation of the basal zoo lagomorph diet with α‐LA elevated the serum levels of essential fatty acids in the Vancouver Island marmot. Zoo Biol 20:251–259, 2001. © 2001 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".