MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2504667633 · doi:10.2527/jas.2016-0412

BEEF CATTLE NUTRITION SYMPOSIUM: Feeding Holstein steers1

2016· article· en· W2504667633 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S.A. Zinn, S. L. Ivey, David Lalman, Nathan Long, R. A. Zinn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal scienceBiologyBeef cattle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the biggest challenges facing the cattle industry in North America (the United States, Mexico, and Canada) is cattle supply. Perhaps one of the most notable shifts in the beef industry has been the increased feeding of Holstein steers to increase cattle supply. Therefore, the 2015 Beef Cattle Nutrition Symposium of the 2015 Joint Annual Meeting of the American Society of Animal Science and the American Dairy Science Association in Orlando, FL, titled “Feeding Holstein Steers” was organized to provide an update in research developments and industry trends related to managing and feeding Holstein steers. The symposium featured 6 speakers, including Luis Burciaga-Robles (Feedlot Health Management Services, Okotoks, Alberta, Canada), Glenn Duff (New Mexico State, Las Cruces), Michael Ballou (Texas Tech University, Lubbock), Richard Zinn (University of California, Davis), T. G. Nagaraja (Kansas State University, Manhattan), and Trent McEvers (West Texas A&M University, Canyon). Speakers addressed 1 of 2 feed yard management segments: the growing period or the finishing period. These 2 periods of growth were separated given that there is a growing body of evidence that the management of calves has a large impact on how they finish.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.006

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207