MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220789462 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2021-0086

Comparative digestibility of energy, dry matter, and nutrients by gestating and lactating sows fed corn–soybean meal diets without or with full-fat or defatted rice bran

2022· article· en· W4220789462 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G. A. Casas, Maryane S F Oliveira, Charmaine D Espinosa, H. H. Stein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBranDry matterNutrientLactationSoybean mealBiologyMealAnimal scienceNeutral Detergent FiberPhosphorusAgronomyOrganic matterFood scienceChemistryPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Twenty-four gestating sows and 24 lactating sows were randomly allotted to three diets with eight replicate sows per treatment in a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement. Different sows were used in gestation and lactation periods. The hypothesis was that digestibility of gross energy (GE), dry matter (DM), and nutrients in lactating sows is not different from that in gestating sows. A corn–soybean-meal diet and two full-fat-rice-bran or defatted rice bran diets were used. Results indicated that regardless of diet, lactating sows had greater (P < 0.01) apparent total tract digestibility of GE, DM, neutral detergent fiber, organic matter, and phosphorus than gestating sows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207