Determination of Decoquinate in Animal Feeds by Liquid Chromatography: Collaborative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance characteristics of a liquid chromatographic (LC) method for the analysis of decoquinate (DEC) in supplements, premixes, and complete animal feeds at medicating and trace levels were collaboratively studied. DEC is extracted from ground feed samples with 1% calcium chloride-methanol solution using mechanical agitation for 90 min. After centrifugation for 5 min and dilution (if necessary), an aliquot of the extract is diluted with water. The diluted extracts are filtered and analyzed by reversed-phase LC with fluorescence detection. Suspect positive trace-level samples are confirmed by using an alternate excitation wavelength. Fourteen test samples of medicated feeds, supplement, and medicated premix, along with 8 test samples for trace-level analysis, were sent to 13 collaborators (one in Canada, 4 in Europe, and 8 in the United States). Test samples were analyzed as blind duplicates. Acceptable results were received from 12 laboratories for the medicated test samples and from 13 laboratories for the trace-level samples. Repeatability relative standard deviation estimates ranged from 1.3 to 5.6%. Reproducibility relative standard deviations estimates ranged from 2.8 to 6.1%, and HorRat values ranged from 0.22 to 0.74.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it