MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095057002 · doi:10.1093/tas/txaa179

Relationship between live body condition score and carcass fat measures in equine

2020· article· en· W3095057002 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPonyAnimal scienceMarbled meatBreedCarcass weightWithersMedicineMathematicsBody weightVeterinary medicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Relationships between live body condition score (BCS) and carcass fat depots have not been well established in equine. Our study was designed to quantify the relationship between BCS and fat depot measurements from equine carcasses. Live horses (n = 429) were evaluated immediately prior to immobilization at a commercial equine processor. Horses were independently assigned a BCS by a panel of three trained evaluators; BCS was evaluated by visual appraisal and manual palpation of the neck, withers, back, ribs, behind the shoulder, and tailhead. Median BCS frequencies were: 3.0 (n = 9), 4.0 (n = 43), 5.0 (n = 116), 6.0 (n = 86), 7.0 (n = 72), 8.0 (n = 76), and 9.0 (n = 27). Sex (stallion [n = 5], mare [n = 159], or gelding [n = 114]) and breed type (draft [n = 56], stock [n = 363], pony [n = 8], or mule [n =3]) were also denoted. Horses were processed for human consumption according to industry-accepted procedures under the supervision of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. During the harvest process, all kidney–pelvic–heart (KPH) fat was trimmed from the carcass and weighed. After chilling, the marbling score was subjectively evaluated using beef grading standards. Carcass fat trim was weighed during the fabrication process. As BCS increased, hot carcass weight (HCW), absolute KPH weight, KPH expressed as a percentage of HCW, marbling score, neck fat depth, absolute weight of trimmed carcass fat, and trimmed carcass fat as a percentage of HCW increased (P < 0.01). A strong correlation (r = 0.74; P < 0.01) was detected between BCS and absolute KPH weight. Similarly, correlations between BCS and percentage of KPH (r = 0.65), neck fat depth (r = 0.60), absolute trimmed carcass fat (r = 0.58), trimmed carcass fat as a percentage of HCW (r = 0.54), marbling score (r = 0.54), and HCW (r = 0.52) were also detected (P < 0.01). These data indicate a strong relationship between subjective live BCS and objectively measured carcass fat depots in various equine breed types and sexes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.338
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.091 · 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