MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Evaluation of the Accuracy and Precision of a Stand-Alone Submersible Continuous Ruminal pH Measurement System

2006· article· en· W2139087046 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordance correlation coefficientAnimal scienceAccuracy and precisionRumenpH meterCorrelation coefficientChemistryMathematicsAnalytical Chemistry (journal)ChromatographyBiologyBiochemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were 1) to develop and evaluate the accuracy and precision of a new stand-alone submersible continuous ruminal pH measurement system called the Lethbridge Research Centre ruminal pH measurement system (LRCpH; Experiment 1); 2) to establish the accuracy and precision of a well-documented, previously used continuous indwelling ruminal pH system (CIpH) to ensure that the new system (LRCpH) was as accurate and precise as the previous system (CIpH; Experiment 2); and 3) to determine the required frequency for pH electrode standardization by comparing baseline millivolt readings of pH electrodes in pH buffers 4 and 7 after 0, 24, 48, and 72 h of ruminal incubation (Experiment 3). In Experiment 1, 6 pregnant Holstein heifers, 3 lactating, primiparous Holstein cows, and 2 Black Angus heifers were used. All experimental animals were fitted with permanent ruminal cannulas. In Experiment 2, the 3 cannulated, lactating, primiparous Holstein cows were used. In both experiments, ruminal pH was determined continuously using indwelling pH electrodes. Subsequently, mean pH values were then compared with ruminal pH values obtained using spot samples of ruminal fluid (MANpH) obtained at the same time. A correlation coefficient accounting for repeated measures was calculated and results were used to calculate the concordance correlation to examine the relationships between the LRCpH-derived values and MANpH, and the CIpH-derived values and MANpH. In Experiment 3, the 6 pregnant Holstein heifers were used along with 6 new submersible pH electrodes. In Experiments 1 and 2, the comparison of the LRCpH output (1- and 5-min averages) to MANpH had higher correlation coefficients after accounting for repeated measures (0.98 and 0.97 for 1- and 5-min averages, respectively) and concordance correlation coefficients (0.96 and 0.97 for 1- and 5-min averages, respectively) than the comparison of CIpH to MANpH (0.88 and 0.87, correlation coefficient and concordance correlation coefficient, respectively). The concordance correlation analysis indicated that the ruminal pH data for LRCpH (1- and 5-min averages) vs. MANpH had location shifts that were smaller than those of the CIpH vs. MANpH. However, the scale shift was similar between the LRCpH and the CIpH. The plotted data from both systems closely resembled the line y = x, indicating that both systems were accurate and precise. In Experiment 3, changes in baseline millivolt readings for pH readings after 24, 48, or 72 h of ruminal incubation were not significantly different than zero, indicating that daily standardization of new electrodes was not essential. Results from this study indicate that the LRCpH system can accurately and precisely measure ruminal pH; thus, it provides increased opportunity for researchers to measure ruminal pH and the occurrence of ruminal acidosis in unrestrained cattle.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.228 · 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