MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063631536 · doi:10.3168/jds.2010-3679

Short communication: Improving passive transfer of immunoglobulins in calves. III. Effect of artificial mothering

2011· article· en· W2063631536 on OpenAlexafffund
Deborah M. Haines, S. Godden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsColostrumStimulationAnimal scienceMedicineAntibodyBiologyInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of artificial mothering, simulated by verbal and physical stimulation of the newborn, on passive transfer of IgG in the dairy calf. Newborn heifer calves born without dystocia were removed from the dam before suckling and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: no tactile or verbal stimulation other than that required for feeding (group 1; n=20), or artificial mothering, consisting of 15 min of vigorous physical and verbal stimulation conducted within 1 to 2h of birth at the time of colostrum feeding and repeated 1 to 2h later (group 2; n=21). All calves were fed 2.25 L (150 g of IgG) of a commercially available colostrum replacement using an esophageal tube feeder. Blood samples collected at 24h of age showed that serum IgG levels and the apparent efficiency of absorption of the IgG were similar in both groups of calves. Artificial mothering by physical and verbal stimulation had no significant effect on IgG passive transfer in dairy heifers born without dystocia.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207