Influence of the efficacy of a probiotic complex containing <i>Bacillus subtilis</i> and <i>Pichia farinosa</i> on the growth performance and fecal microbiota of finishing pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 120 finish pigs [(Landrace × Yorkshire) × Duroc; 52.61 ± 2.37 kg] were randomly allotted into three treatments for a 70 d trial to evaluate the growth performance and fecal microbiota counts in finishing pigs. Treatment groups were (i) basal diet (CON), (ii) CON + 0.1% probiotic complex (TRT1), and (iii) CON + 0.2% probiotic complex (TRT2). Each treatment consisted of eight replicate pens with five pigs per pen. The average daily gain and fecal Lactobacillus counts of TRT2 were increased (P < 0.05) compared with CON treatment. The result showed that 0.2% complex probiotic was more effective than 0.1%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".