MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213266223 · doi:10.3390/foods11040518

Influence of Production Factors on Beef Primal Tissue Composition

2022· article· en· W4213266223 on OpenAlexaff
Vipasha Sood, Argenis Rodas‐González, Stephanie Lam, Ó. López-Campos, José Segura, Timothy Schwinghamer, M.E.R. Dugan, J. A. Basarab, J.L. Aalhus, M. Juárez

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarbled meatLoinBreedCrossbreedLean tissueAnimal scienceComposition (language)BiologyProduction system (computer science)Food scienceBiotechnologyProduction (economics)Adipose tissueBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study used 1076 crossbred steers to evaluate the effects of calf-fed and yearling-fed beef production systems, implant strategies (with and without implants), and their interactions on the primal tissue composition (lean and fat components) of individual primal cuts using complete carcass dissection data. The results indicate that production system × implant interactions affected loin and rib primal weight percentages as well as marbling (p < 0.05) but did not affect the dissectible lean and fat contents of the individual primal cut (p > 0.05). Implants increased lean and decreased fat tissue contents of primal cut; however, the production system only affected lean content in the loin (p < 0.05) and fat content in the loin, round, and rib (p < 0.05). Redundancy analysis revealed a strong association between Angus breed percentage and marbling, as well as between Simmental breed percentage and multiple primal lean traits. Response surface regression models explained less variability in the tissue composition traits in calf-fed compared with yearling-fed animals, suggesting the need for further exploration using genomic studies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207