MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110934446 · doi:10.2527/2004.823733x

Technical note: A proposed method to determine the extent of degradation of a feed in the rumen from the degradation profile obtained with the in vitro gas production technique using feces as the inoculum1

2004· article· en· W2110934446 on OpenAlexaff
M.S. Dhanoa, J. France, L.A. Crompton, Rogério Martins Maurício, E. Kebreab, J.A.N. Mills, R. Sanderson, J. Dijkstra, Secundino López

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenDegradation (telecommunications)Production (economics)Biological systemRange (aeronautics)FecesFunction (biology)MathematicsKinetic energyEnvironmental scienceChemistrySoil scienceBiologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceFood scienceEcologyPhysicsFermentation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method is proposed to determine the extent of degradation in the rumen involving a two-stage mathematical modeling process. In the first stage, a statistical model shifts (or maps) the gas accumulation profile obtained using a fecal inoculum to a ruminal gas profile. Then, a kinetic model determines the extent of degradation in the rumen from the shifted profile. The kinetic model is presented as a generalized mathematical function, allowing any one of a number of alternative equation forms to be selected. This method might allow the gas production technique to become an approach for determining extent of degradation in the rumen, decreasing the need for surgically modified animals while still maintaining the link with the animal. Further research is needed before the proposed methodology can be used as a standard method across a range of feeds.

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations25
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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