MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078649219 · doi:10.2527/jas.2008-1665

Technical note: Evaluation of a continuous ruminal pH measurement system for use in noncannulated small ruminants1

2009· article· en· W2078649219 on OpenAlexaff
G.B. Penner, Jörg R. Aschenbach, Gotthold Gäbel, M. Oba

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal sciencepH meterRumenConcordance correlation coefficientCorrelation coefficientChemistryCoefficient of variationGlucose meterAccuracy and precisionChromatographyBiochemistryMathematicsBiologyFermentationEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the precision and accuracy of an indwelling ruminal pH measurement system that could be used in small ruminants (small ruminant ruminal pH measurement system; SRS) without requiring ruminal cannulation. The outer diameter, length, and weight of the SRS were 20.6 mm, 138 mm, and 245 g, respectively. This device was capable of logging pH, temperature, and battery voltage. In Exp. 1, a ruminally cannulated sheep (94 kg) was infused with a 40% (wt/vol) glucose solution to supply 5 g of glucose/kg of BW into the rumen. Ruminal pH was recorded every 30 s simultaneously using a portable pH meter and the SRS. In Exp. 2, 30 noncannulated sheep (72 +/- 10 kg of BW) were orally administered with a 40% glucose solution as described above (5 g of glucose/kg of BW; n = 22) or an equivalent volume of water (12.5 mL/kg of BW; n = 8). Sheep were slaughtered 3 h after the oral drench, and immediately after slaughter ruminal pH readings were measured manually using a portable pH meter and were compared with measurements recorded by the SRS. In Exp. 1, the relationship between manual pH measurement using a portable pH meter and the SRS (226 data pairs) had a Pearson correlation coefficient and concordance correlation coefficient of 0.97 and 0.96, respectively. Furthermore, the scale shift and location shift observed in Exp. 1 were 1.28 and 0.00, respectively. The relationship between measurements conducted manually using a portable pH meter and the SRS in Exp. 2 had Pearson and concordance correlation coefficients of 0.96 and 0.95, respectively. The respective scale and location shifts for Exp. 2 were 1.16 and 0.04. These results indicate that the measurements obtained from SRS were in agreement with simultaneous measurements manually conducted using a portable pH meter, suggesting that the SRS can be used to measure ruminal pH in noncannulated small ruminants.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207