27 Evaluating the Functional Differences at Genome, Transcriptome and Methylome Level between ARS-UCD1.2 and UMD 3.1 Bovine Reference Genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Crossbred beef steers, n = 5,140; 352 ± 5.45 kg initial body weight (BW) were used to evaluate chromium propionate supplementation to yearling steers in a commercial feedyard. Cattle were blocked by arrival date and initial BW and assigned randomly to pen within block; pens were randomly assigned to treatment within block. Treatments, replicated in 15 pens per treatment with 130 to 250 steers per pen, included: 1) control (CTL), 0 mg supplemental Cr/kg dietary dry matter (DM); 2) chromium (CR) 0.50 mg supplemental Cr/kg dietary DM (4.9 mg/d; chromium propionate; KemTRACE Chromium 0.4%, Kemin Industries, Des Moines, IA). Final BW, average daily gain (ADG) and gain efficiency (G:F) did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.26). Dry matter intake was greater for CR than CTL, 8.61 kg. vs. 8.49 kg, respectively (P = 0.03). Hot carcass weight (HCW), dressing percentage, ribeye area, and 12th-rib-fat were not different for CTL or CR (P ≥ 0.12). The percentage of carcasses camera grading choice or better was greater (P = 0.04) for CR (51.2%) than CTL (48%), and the percentage of select carcasses was less (P = 0.01) for CR (41.5%) than CTL (45.5%). Yield grade distribution did not differ among treatments (P ≥ 0.26). There was no difference (P ≥ 0.36) in overall morbidity (7.75%), or total mortality (1.43%) between treatments. Steers fed CR had higher quality carcasses, and similar G:F and HCW to CTL.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".