MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124301641

Effects of gender, sire line, and penning environment on growth, carcass characteristics, and aspects of pork meat quality at different locations in the loin

2011· article· en· W2124301641 on OpenAlexaffvenue
I. B. Mandell, C. P. Campbell, C. F. de Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSireLoinCrossbreedAnimal scienceBreedLongissimus muscleLongissimus ThoracisBiologyCarcass weightBody weightTendernessEndocrinology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One hundred and eighty crossbred pigs were used to determine the effects of gender, sire line (Duroc- or two Yorkshire-lines; all mated to Yorkshire sows), and penning environment on growth, carcass characteristics, and pork quality. Loins from all pigs were subdivided into cranial, grade site, and caudal portions to determine the effects of location along the longissimus muscle on pork quality. At approximately 25 kg BW, barrows and gilts were assigned to three penning environments based on feeder type/pig density treatments including FIRE feeder-low density, FIRE feeder-high density, and Conventional feeder-high density. Sire line by penning environment interactions (P < 0.02) were present for final BW, ADG, and days to market suggesting that both within and between breed performance are influenced by rearing environment. Sire line by site of longissimus muscle sampling interactions (P < 0.01) were present for muscle pH at 48 h postmortem, L*, drip loss, and IMF content. Line by site values for L* were ...

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207