MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2959861604 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2019-0037

Parity and dietary energy allowance during gestation influence piglet energy status and serum insulin-like growth factor 1 at birth

2019· article· en· W2959861604 on OpenAlexaffvenue
E.G. Miller, L. Huber, Crystal L Levesque, C. F. M. de Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycogenInsulin-like growth factorParity (physics)GestationInsulinBiologyEndocrinologyAnimal scienceEnergy requirementInternal medicinePregnancyGrowth factorBiochemistryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over- or under-supplying energy by 15% to gestating sows had minimum consequences for piglet chemical body composition or energy storage (liver and muscle glycogen) at birth, when estimated amino acid requirements were met. Providing gestating sows with energy 15% below versus 15% above requirements increased piglet serum insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) concentrations at birth (P < 0.05). Piglets from first versus second parity sows had lower serum IGF-1 but greater liver glycogen and body fat. Precisely matching the estimated energy and nutrient requirements throughout gestation and across parities likely improves piglet quality; over-supplying energy appears most detrimental for piglet IGF-1 serum concentrations at birth.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207