Blended by-product feed pellets for backgrounding cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zenobi, M. G., Lardner, H. A., Jefferson, P. G. and McKinnon, J. J. 2014. Blended by-product feed pellets for backgrounding cattle. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 94: 533–543. Two trials were conducted to evaluate the performance of cattle fed blended by-product pellets (BP) formulated to be high in starch (HS 45% DM) or fat (HF 8.5% DM) and low (LSP; 27% of CP DM) or high (HSP; 37% of CP DM) in soluble protein. In trial 1, 300 crossbred steers (320±21.6 kg, mean±SD) were assigned to one of 25 pens and fed one of five diets. The control diet consisted of 46.9% forage and 53.1% barley-based concentrate. The four treatments were 48.5% forage and 51.5% BP (DM). Diets were formulated to 1.63 and 1.02 Mcal kg−1 NEm and NEg, respectively (DM). In trial 2, 180 crossbred steers (326±20.3 kg) were assigned to one of 15 pens, each assigned to one of three treatments. The control was 54.3% forage and 45.7% concentrate, while the two HF BP treatments were 56.6% forage and 43.4% BP (DM). All diets were formulated to 1.57 and 0.97...
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".