MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412645367

Canadian beef quality audit 1998-99.

2001· article· en· W2412645367 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joyce Van Donkersgoed, G Jewison, S Bygrove, K Gillis, D Malchow, Graeme McLeod

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsCanadian Cattlemen's Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoinCarcass weightAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineAuditMedicineBiologyBody weightBusinessInternal medicineAccounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second beef quality audit was conducted in Canada in 1998-99 to determine the prevalence of quality defects in slaughtered cattle and to monitor changes since the first audit in 1995. Approximately 0.6% of the number of cattle processed annually in Canada were evaluated. Brands were observed on 49% and tag was observed on 43% of the hides. Both brands and tag had increased from 1995. Seventy percent of the cattle were polled and 5% had full horns; thus, the number of horned cattle had decreased from 1995. Bruises were found on 54% of the carcasses, which was a decrease from 78% in 1995. Sixty-eight percent of the bruises were minor, 28% major, and 4% critical in severity. The distribution of bruises on the carcass was 17% on the chuck, 36% on the rib, 30% on the loin, and 16% on the round. Grubs were observed on 0.008% of the carcasses, and surface injection site lesions were observed on 0.2% of the whole carcasses, a decrease from the 1.3% seen in 1995. Seventy-two percent of the livers were passed for human food and 14% for pet food; 14% were condemned. Approximately 64% of the liver losses were due to abscesses. Five percent of the heads and tongues and 0.3% of the whole carcasses were condemned. The hot carcass weight was highly variable in all cattle, averaging 353 kg (s = 43). The average ribeye area was 90 cm2 (s = 13). Both hot carcass weight and ribeye area had increased from 1995. The average grade fat was 9 mm (s = 5), ranging from 0 mm to 48 mm. Lean meat yield averaged 58.8% (s = 4.6). One percent of the carcasses were devoid of marbling, 17% were Canada A, 49% were Canada AA, 32% were Canada AAA, and 1% were Canada Prime, which was an increase in marbling from 1995. Dark cutters were found in 1% of all carcasses; 1% of steers, 0.5% of heifers, 3% of cows, and 14% of bulls. Three percent of the carcasses were underfinished and 13% were overfinished. The number of overfinished carcasses had increased from 1995. Stages, steers with bullish traits, were infrequently observed in 0.5% of the steers, and 0.2% of the steers and 0.3% of the heifers had poor conformation. Yellow fat was not observed in any steers or heifers, but it was found on 65% of the cow carcasses. Only 0.6% of the heifers had an aged carcass, based on skeletal maturity. Based on August 1998 to July 1999 prices, it was estimated that the Canadian beef industry lost $82.62 per head processed, or $274 million annually, from quality nonconformities, which was an increase from 1995. Additional improvements in management, feeding, handling, genetics, marketing, and grading are needed in the beef industry to reduce quality defects.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.855
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations39
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207