MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129061836 · doi:10.4995/wrs.1998.357

EFFECT OF GENOTYPE, AGE, BODY WEIGHT AND SEX ON THE BODY COMPOSITION OF GROWING RABBITS.

2010· article· en· W2129061836 on OpenAlexaff
Zsolt Szendrő, Ágnes Kenessey, J F Jensen, J. Csapó, R. Romvárí, G. Milisits

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Rabbit Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurebredAnimal scienceBiologyComposition (language)Body weightDry matterLitterEndocrinologyInternal medicineMedicineCrossbreedEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body composition of 503 growing rabbits of both sexes was examined at the age of 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 weeks. The animals were of four genotypes: purebred Pannon White (PP) and Danish White (DD) and their reciprocal crossings: DP and PD. Between the ages of 6 and 16 weeks, dry matter of the empty body increased from 27.6% to 34.2%, fat from 5.4% to 10.1 % and protein from 18.4% to 20.9%, whereas ash content decreased from 3.5% to 3.0%. The effect of body weight was greater than that of the age. The two groups containing the highest numbers of animals (PP and DP) had similar protein and ash content, but the DP genotype had a higher fat content than PP. Sex affected fat content only: the female rabbits contained significantly (P < 0.01) more body fat than the male rabbits but only at 12 weeks.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Rabbit ScienceSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207