Seasonal energetic parameters of free-grazing bison (<i>Bison bison</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seasonal energetic parameters of yearling bison were estimated using the bite-count and single marker methods (fieldtrials) during each solstice and equinox between June 1994 and December 1995. To calibrate the marker method and to provide a controlled estimate of seasonal requirements, balance trials were conducted in metabolism crates during winter solstice 1994 and summer solstice 1995 (pen trials). In pen trials, actual metabolizable energy (ME) intake was lower (P < 0.01) during winter (528 ± 51 kJ W −0.75 d −1 ) than in summer (917 ± 69 kJ W −0.75 d −1 ). Similarly, in field trials, estimated ME intakes were lower for both bite count (P < 0.01) and marker methods (P < 0.05) during winter (819 ± 375, 146 ± 105 kJ W −0.75 d −1 ) than summer (1977 ± 186, 408 ± 53 kJ W −0.75 d −1 ), respectively. Estimated ME requirements (actual intake, pen trials) were 532 ± 178 kJ W −0.75 d −1 in winter and 956 ± 107 kJ W −0.75 d −1 in summer. In field trials, estimated ME requirements (marker method) ranged from 146 ± 22 kJ W −0.75 d −1 (December 1994) to 478 ± 45 kJ W −0.75 d −1 (June 1995). Seasonal variation (P < 0.05) in total digesta turnover time (46.4 ± 1.4 h, December 1994; 24.9 ± 2.7 h, June 1995) was related more consistently to seasonal differences in transit time (18.2 ± 1.2 h, 4.0 ± 0.8 h, respectively) than differences in reticulo-rumen and lower tract turnover time. Bison exhibited strong seasonal differences in energetic parameters like other northern wild ruminants. Key words: Bison, seasonality, metabolizable energy requirements, intake, excretion parameters, grazing
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".