MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2191638682 · doi:10.4141/cjas-2014-035

Blended by-product feed pellets for backgrounding cattle

2014· article· en· W2191638682 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
M.G. Zenobi, H.A. Lardner, P. G. Jefferson, J. J. McKinnon

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersHealth CanadaPfizer CanadaElanco Animal HealthForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsPelletsAnimal scienceProduct (mathematics)Environmental scienceMathematicsMaterials scienceBiologyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207