Evaluation of eprinomectin extended-release injectable (LongRange®) on the performance of yearling cattle on pasture in western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the pre-shipment handling procedures at each of 2 feedlots of origin, mixed-breed beef steers were weighed, stratified into weight blocks, and simultaneously randomized within weight block to 1 of 2 experimental groups (LONG or IVER) prior to shipment to pasture. Animals in the LONG group (1523 animals) received a subcutaneous injection of eprinomectin extended-release injectable at a dosage of 0.45 mg/lb (1.0 mg/kg) body weight (BW) in the loose skin in front of the shoulder at allocation. Animals in the IVER group (1524 animals) received topical ivermectin applied along the top line from withers to tail head at a dosage of 0.23 mg/lb (0.5 mg/kg) BW at allocation. Animals from both experimental groups were commingled within weight block and originating feedlot after allocation and remained in these commingled groups for the duration of the study. The average days on trial was 156.6 days for the LONG group and 156.7 days for the IVER group. There was a significant increase observed with respect to weight gain (absolute difference 23 lb [10.4 kg], P<0.001) and average daily gain (difference 11.19%, P<0.001) in the LONG group compared to the IVER group. There was an economic advantage of CAD $7.66/animal in the LONG group compared to the IVER group.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".