Comparative Effects of Breed and Sex on Carcass and Organ Profiles of Duck (Anas plantrynychos) and Guinea Fowl (Numidia meleagris) in Abeokuta, Ogun State, Nigeria
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Carcass and organs characteristics of two breeds and sexes of poultry which include Duck and Guinea fowl (GF) were investigated. A total of twenty four matured birds with twelve from each breed were used for this study in a 2 × 2 (Breed × Sex) factorial arrangement in a completely randomized design. The birds were slaughtered in batches of four properly bled, defeathered and dressed, the carcasses and organs weighed. The birds carcasses were chilled at 4 ºC for 24hrs prior to fabrication into primal cuts. The results showed that duck had higher (P&lt;0.05) carcass and organs weight and percentages than GF, also males irrespective of the breed gave higher (P&lt;0.05) carcass and organs weight and percentages than their female counterparts. At interaction level male ducks still gave higher (P&lt;0.05) cut-up parts weight and percentages than female, while female GF elicited higher (P&lt;0.05) primal cuts weight and percentages. It was observed from this study that Duck and GF carcass and organs cut-up parts were heavy enough to supply needed protein like chicken. These birds can therefore, be integrated into commercial poultry production to make animal protein more available to consumers.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it