MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116947706 · doi:10.1086/375432

Carotenoids in Eggs and Plasma of Red‐Legged Partridges: Effects of Diet and Reproductive Output

2003· article· en· W2116947706 on OpenAlexafffund
Gary R. Bortolotti, Juan J. Negro, Paloma Prieto

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological and Biochemical Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCarotenoidBiologyYolkContext (archaeology)Seasonal breederBotanyAnimal scienceZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carotenoids are important dietary constituents in birds. They serve as pigments and play numerous physiological roles in both the laying hen and developing embryo. However, factors determining the absorption of carotenoids and their allocation to different functions are numerous and complex, and causal relationships are generally poorly known. Our objective was to determine the degree to which carotenoid levels in egg yolks and the plasma of hens were influenced by differences in diet and reproductive output in captive red-legged partridges. Carotenoid concentrations were measured by high performance liquid chromatography in two feeds (high and low carotenoid content) and in yolks and plasma of hens near the start and end of laying. Early in the laying season, plasma and yolk carotenoids varied with diet and were correlated with one another. Late in the season, a dietary effect was evident only for yolks, and there was no relationship between plasma and egg levels of individual hens. However, plasma carotenoids at the end of laying were strongly correlated with the number of eggs that had been laid. Dietary availability, although important, could explain some variation in carotenoid levels in plasma and egg yolks only in the context of reproductive history.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations131
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological and Biochemical ZoologySame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207