MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307608119 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2015-0152

Evaluation of a phase-feeding strategy utilizing high-lipid high-fibre byproduct pellets in diets for feedlot steers

2016· article· en· W2307608119 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
F. Joy, P. Górka, J. J. McKinnon, S. Hendrick, L. O. Burciaga-Robles, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesLethbridge CollegeUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFeedlotCanolaPelletsAnimal scienceDry matterCarcass weightMealChemistryBiologyBody weightFood scienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies were conducted to evaluate the provision of high-lipid high-fibre byproduct pellets when used as a partial replacement (60% in Study 1 and 30% in Study 2; HLP) for barley grain and canola meal in finishing diets (BAR). The HLP was fed for the last 49, 98, or 147 d (HLP49, HLP98, and HLP147, respectively) in Study 1, and for the last 60 or 120 d in Study 2 (HLP60 and HLP120, respectively) or the last 60 d with additional canola oil (HLP60CO). The statistical model included the fixed effects of diet, period, and the interaction. Steers fed BAR147 had the greatest average daily gain (ADG) (P < 0.01) and G:F (P = 0.01). The HLP147 had the greatest dry matter intake (DMI) during the first 49 d but least during the last 49 d of the finishing phase (treatment × period; P < 0.01). Hot carcass weight for BAR147 and HLP49 were the heaviest (P = 0.04). In Study 2, DMI and ADG were not affected (P > 0.05), but hot carcass weight was greater for BAR120 and HLP60 than HLP120 and HLP60CO. Inclusion of high-fibre high-lipid byproduct pellets in the latter part of the finishing period may improve carcass yield grade without affecting ADG and G:F.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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