MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232627894 · doi:10.1093/ps/83.1.95

Microbial Contamination in Inoculated Shell Eggs: II. Effects of Layer Strain and Egg Storage

2004· article· en· W4232627894 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D.R. Jones, P.A. Curtis, Kenneth E. Anderson, F.T. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContaminationSalmonella enteritidisInoculationInfectivitySalmonellaBiologyEggshellFood scienceFlockStrain (injury)Animal scienceMicrobiologyChemistryVeterinary medicineHorticultureBacteriaEcologyAnatomyVirusVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three Ottawa control strains and a current commercial laying stock were reared and housed in the same environment. Eggs were collected at 5 different hen ages throughout the 2 production cycles of the flock. The eggs were inoculated with Salmonella Enteritidis (SE), Pseudomonas fluorescens (PF), a combination of the 2, or sterile buffered peptone water and stored up to 5 wk. After storage at room temperature, contamination levels were determined for the exterior surface, air cell, egg contents, and within the shell. Interior, egg contents, and shell contamination levels of SE and PF increased with storage time. There were no apparent increases in the infectivity of SE or PF in the presence of the other organism. PF was a poor survivor on the shell surface under these storage conditions. Throughout the 5-wk storage, eggs from control strain 10 maintained their microbial integrity more effectively. Eggs from control strain 5 and the current commercial stock were more easily contaminated than the other strains. These data suggest that genetic selection has altered microbiological defenses of the eggs produced.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
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 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207