MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2431436861 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2016-0043

Comparison of apparent ileal and total tract digestibility of calcium in calcium sources for pigs

2016· article· en· W2431436861 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F. Zhang, Darryl Ragland, O. Adeola

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
KeywordsRandomized block designCalciumAnimal scienceMealCompletely randomized designSunflowerSoybean mealChemistryCanolaFish mealFood scienceBiologyAgronomyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two experiments were conducted to compare apparent ileal digestibility (AID) and apparent total tract digestibility (ATTD) of calcium (Ca) in pigs. In experiment 1, three semipurified diets with soybean meal, canola meal, or sunflower meal as the sole source of Ca were formulated. Eighteen cannulated pigs (initial BW = 66 ± 5 kg) were assigned in a randomized complete block design to three treatments and six replicates per treatment. Results indicated that for either Ca or phosphorus (P), the ATTD was not different from the AID in the three diets (P site = 0.16 and 0.81, respectively). In experiment 2, diets with four Ca concentrations were formulated with calcium carbonate as the Ca source. Sixteen cannulated pigs (initial BW = 73 ± 4 kg) were assigned in a randomized complete block design to four treatments in two experimental periods. The results indicated that the ATTD of Ca was not different from the AID for all diets. Furthermore, the Ca digestibility was not affected by dietary treatments, but the P digestibility was linearly improved (P &lt; 0.01) as dietary Ca and P concentrations increased. Thus, it is concluded that both AID and ATTD can be used to describe the digestibility of Ca for growing–finishing pigs.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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