Comparaison de quatre protocoles de préparation préopératoire chez le bovin.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to evaluate 4 preoperative skin preparations, that is, more specifically, to compare the efficacy of chlorhexidine gluconate (CG) and povidone-iodine (PI), as well as 2 hair removal techniques (clipper alone or clipper followed by razor) for preoperative skin preparation in cattle. The 4 protocols resulted in a significant decrease in the number of bacterial colony-forming units (cfu). Group 4 (clipping + shaving + CG) had a significantly lower number of preoperative cfu per gel plate compared with groups 1 (clipping + PI) and 3 (clipping + shaving + PI). Skin reaction frequency was significantly higher in groups 3 and 4 (47.8% for both protocols) than in groups 1 and 2 (clipping + PI or CG) (8.7% for both). Wound infection frequency was 4.3% (4/92) and no significant difference was observed between the 4 treatment groups. The 4 protocols tested were equivalent as to efficacy and satisfactorily decreased skin microflora. Clipping alone was shown to be preferable to clipping plus shaving as a method of hair removal in cattle, with fewer skin reactions and no more wound infections.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it