MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2788104

The Australian Beef Research experience and how it relates to Canada

2009· article· en· W2788104 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather L. Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueDelaware medical journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthLivestockCorporationPopulationAgricultureGeographyAgricultural economicsBeef industryBeef cattlePolitical scienceBusinessEconomicsSociologyForestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been discussion in the Alberta cattle industry about how Meat Standards Australia, the Australian beef grading system, revitalized the beef industry in Australia. Meat Standards Australia was a grading system concept developed in 1994 to focus on the characteristics of beef valued by the consumer. The impetus for Meat Standards Australia came from the Meat Industry Strategic Planning group, a collection of producer and processor representatives, which mandated that research be performed that would halt the decline of beef consumption in Australia, a decline that had been underway since the mid1970’s, with a startling 26 kg lost per capita between 1975 and 1985 (Kingston et al. 1987). Australian consumers cited inconsistent quality as the main reason for the decline in beef consumption, a perception exacerbated by waning meat cooking skills in the general population and the rise in popularity of convenience foods (Polkinghorne et al. 2008). Understanding and controlling meat quality was therefore one of the key thrusts behind the development of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Cattle and Meat Quality, a research group drawn from the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the state agriculture departments of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia, Murdoch University, the University of Adelaide and led by the Department of Meat Science at the University of New England (UNE) in Armidale, NSW. The Beef CRC as it became known was supported by the Cattle Council of Australia, the Australian Lot Feeders Association (ALFA) and the Australian Livestock Export Corporation and received considerable sponsorship and in kind support from individual cattle pastoralist and animal health companies. The Beef CRC was primarily financed, however, from actual monies from Meat and Livestock Australia, ALFA, the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research and the Australian Federal Government Cooperative Research Centre matching funds.

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0330.013
Scholarly communication0.0180.005
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDelaware medical journal→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→