In pursuit of a better broiler: tibial morphology, breaking strength, and ash content in conventional and slower-growing strains of broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
) in a randomized incomplete block design, with each strain represented in 8 to 12 pens over 2-3 trials. From each pen, 4 birds (2 males and 2 females) were individually weighed and euthanized at 2 target weights (TWs) according to their time to reach approximately 2.1 kg (TW1: 34 d for CONV and 48 d for SG strains) and 3.2 kg (TW2: 48 d for CONV and 62 d for SG strains). Tibiae samples were dissected, and length and diameter were recorded. Left tibiae were used for tibial breaking strength (TBS) at both TWs and tibial ash at TW2. At TW1, CONV birds' tibiae were narrowest and shortest (P < 0.001), yet had similar TBS compared to the other categories (P > 0.69). At TW2, category (P > 0.50) had no effect on tibial diameter, yet CONV birds had the shortest tibiae (P < 0.001). The CONV birds had greater TBS:BW ratio than FAST and MOD birds at both TWs 1 and 2 (P < 0.039) and similar ash content as the other categories at TW2 (P > 0.220). At 48 d of age, CONV birds had the greatest absolute TBS (P < 0.003), yet lower TBS:BW ratio than SLOW birds (P < 0.001). Tibiae from CONV birds were longer than MOD and SLOW birds, and thicker in diameter than the other categories, yet CONV birds had the lowest dimensions relative to BW (P < 0.001) at 48 d, indicating a negative association between accelerated growth and tibial dimensions. These results indicate that differences in functional abilities among categories may be due to differences in morphometric traits rather than differences in bone strength and mineralization.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".