MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Circadian Patterns of Ingestion and Rumination in Ruminants: A Chronophysiological Review

2019· review· en· W2944690329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akbar Nikkhah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEffects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRuminationIngestionCircadian rhythmPhysiologyBiologyPsychologyEndocrinologyNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

Grazing occurs mainly around sunrise and sunset. The time spent eating during the dusk grazing bout appears to be longer than that during the dawn and afternoon bouts. The rumen fill has likely a more significant role in regulating the dusk feed intake compared to dawn and afternoon feed intakes. The evening instead of morning feed delivery in once daily fed lactating dairy cows has increased eating rate and the amount of feed ingested within 3-h post-feeding substantively. Evidently, feeding strategies and systems regulate feed intake through altering circadian rhythms of feed intake in high-producing ruminants. The large evening meals in grazing cows have partly been linked to an optimal foraging strategy. Ruminants attempt to optimize their nutrient intake profile by filling the rumen in the evening because usually little grazing occurs overnight. Turning lights on and off seems to act as an inducer, thus stimulating eating activity. Dairy cows fed once daily at 2100 vs. 0900 h have experienced a larger rumen volume. The greater rumen contents or greater rumen fiber load may stimulate bolus formation required for rumination. The greater rumen contents or greater rumen fiber load may stimulate bolus formation required for rumination. Future research is warranted to quantify how different managements can manipulate eating and ruminating patterns in dairy and beef ruminants undergoing varying physiological states.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Review of circadian feeding physiology in ruminants; synthesis of domain findings.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: other
about Canada: no
confidence: high

This review concerns feeding and rumination biology in ruminants, not research.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Chronophysiology review of ruminant feeding and rumination patterns.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicEffects of Environmental Stressors on LivestockFrench-language works237,207