Iowa Beef Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During 2016, IBC staff made 183 presentations to more than 13,700 participants, conducted 564 personal consultations, and over 4,100 phone or email consultations. The webinars and videos IBC produced were viewed more than 20,000 times, and the online software tools had 375,000 downloads. There were 180,000 website visitors and 3,500 social media contacts. IBC funded 4 mini grant projects investigating current industry questions including: Management effects on ergovaline content of stockpiled tall fescue for winter grazing • Grazing cover crops • Calving management on Iowa beef cattle farms • Corn silage characteristics on Iowa farms Iowa Beef Center staff are also involved in current ISU Beef Research projects related to cover crop grazing by stocker cattle, bull reproduction and fescue tolerance. Beef team staff authored nine 2017 Animal Industry Research reports. They annually conduct a needs assessment such as listening sessions, formal surveys, or think tanks. The following are some examples of featured programs evaluated in 2016.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".