MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068202943 · doi:10.4141/a00-034

Effects of barley silage particle length and effective fiber on yield and composition of milk from dairy

2000· article· en· W2068202943 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
P.J. Kononoff, A. F. Mustafa, D. A. Christensen, J. J. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilageNeutral Detergent FiberComposition (language)Food scienceForageAnimal scienceFiberParticle sizeDairy cattleDry matterChemistryBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study was conducted to determine the effects of two theoretical lengths of particle (TLP) of barley silage on physically effective neutral detergent fiber (peNDF) content and on yield and composition of milk in dairy cows. Type I peNDF uses the neutral detergent fiber (NDF) of forage materials retained on a 1.18-mm screen while Type II peNDF is based on the NDF content of three different particle size fractions. Cows received diets consisting of 55% concentrate and 45% barley silage of either a 9.5-mm or 4.8-mm TLP. Results showed no difference in Type I peNDF between the two barley silage TLP. However, barley silage with a 9.5 mm TLP contained more (P < 0.05) Type II peNDF than barley silage with a 4.8 mm TLP. Differences in particle size or Type II peNDF content of barley silage had no effect on yield or composition of milk in dairy cows. Key words: Particle size, physically effective fiber, dairy cows

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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