MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3042979878 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2019-0184

Impacts of feeding monensin sodium on production and the efficiency of milk production in dairy cows fed total mixed rations: evaluation of a confounded literature

2020· article· en· W3042979878 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
P.H. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonensinAnimal scienceDry matterMilk productionDairy cattleMilk fatFood scienceLactationChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amount of milk Canadian dairy farmers produce is limited to a production quota expressed in milk fat. Because milk economic value is primarily based on fat and protein, it can be advantageous to decrease the milk fat to protein ratio. Monensin sodium has been suggested to reduce milk fat proportion and outputs, but not milk protein. Publications using lactating dairy cows were utilized to assess predictability of production responses to monensin feeding based upon their base production characteristics and diet composition. Predicted animal output changes due to monensin had poor fits with low r2 (0.31–0.44) and unevenly distributed residuals. Further assessment revealed that cow characteristics, and diets, were not independent of monensin feeding level. Thus, the 43 comparisons were clustered into levels of 10–12, 14–18, or 20–24 mg kg−1 of diet dry matter (DM). Milk fat yield reductions due to monensin differed (P < 0.05; 10–12 and 14–18 mg kg−1 DM), or tended to differ (P = 0.057; 20–24 mg kg−1 DM), from zero (i.e., no change). Monensin addition to total mixed rations of lactating dairy cows negatively impacted milk fat yield to a greater extent than milk protein.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→