Intermittent lighting program does not hinder the performance of broiler chickens and promotes energy economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of broiler chickens in different lighting programs. Broiler chickens were fed on feeders of different colours at different breeding phases. In total, 240 Cobb500™ chicks mixed at 1 d of age were used. They were distributed in a completely randomized design. The treatments followed a 2 × 4 factorial design: two lighting programs (continuous and intermittent), and four colours of feeders (white, green, blue, and red). The birds were evaluated for weekly productive performance and the data were submitted to analysis of variance and later Tukey’s test for comparison of means. In the periods 1–7, 1–21, and 1–42 d of age, lighting programs and feeder colours affected weight gain, feed intake, and feed conversion. Intermittent red feeders influenced positively the performance of birds. It is possible to replace conventional lighting programs for intermittent lighting programs. Red feeders exert a positive influence on the performance of broiler chickens.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".