MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2291618125 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20074515

Investigation of Accidental Lead Exposure in Feeder Cattle

2007· article· en· W2291618125 on OpenAlexaffabout
Clyde W. Jones, Sylvia Checkley, Calvin W. Booker, J. D. Kendall, G. Kee Jim, Nickala Best

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy metals in environment
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLead (geology)Lead exposureFeedlotAnimal welfareToxicologyEnvironmental healthAnimal scienceBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A commercial backgrounding feedlot unknowingly fed lead-contaminated feed as evidenced by finding battery casing fragments and particles of lead plating in the feed bunk of a pen of animals with nervous disease. Investigation into the source of the contamination revealed that a large implement battery had been ground through the feed mixer. Over the next week, more than half of the animals within the pen where the exposure was centered showed evidence of nervous disease progressing to death or were humanely euthanized based on animal welfare considerations. The remainder of the pen showed little or no clinical evidence of exposure. Despite documentation that animals exhibiting no clinical evidence of lead toxicity may still have elevated blood and tissue lead levels, there are insufficient guidelines for ensuring that animals with potential lead exposure will be safe for human consumption. No specific regulations exist regarding the amount of lead permissible in Canadian beef. A disease investigation was undertaken to determine the extent of lead exposure in the feedlot and to formulate a plan for the disposition of exposed and unexposed animals.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings→Same topicHeavy metals in environment→French-language works237,207→