MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307044467 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2022-0039

Digestible and metabolizable energy values of faba beans and field peas fed to growing pigs

2022· article· en· W4307044467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abidemi Abosede Adekoya, O. Adeola

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized block designDry matterAnimal scienceSoybean oilEnergy densityChemistrySoybean mealBody weightMealFood scienceBiologyAgronomyEndocrinologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The digestible energy (DE) and metabolizable energy (ME) in faba beans (FB) and field peas (FP) fed to growing pigs were estimated by the difference procedure in two experiments using the total collection method. Twenty-four barrows with mean initial body weight (BW) of 20.0 kg (SD = 1.13) and 20.4 kg (SD = 0.56) in the first (Exp. 1) and second experiments (Exp. 2), respectively, were assigned to three dietary treatments in a randomized complete block design with BW as a blocking factor. A reference diet was prepared using corn, soybean meal, and soybean oil as the energy-contributing ingredients. Organic FB and DS Admiral FP (FPD) in Exp. 1 and Hampton FP (FPH) and 4010 FP (FP4) in Exp. 2 were included at 30% in the reference diet. In Exp. 1, the determined DE and ME were 3772 and 3606 kcal·kg−1 dry matter (DM) in FB and 3683 and 3589 kcal·kg−1 DM in FPD, respectively. In Exp. 2, the respective DE and ME were 4164 and 4014 kcal·kg−1 DM in FPH and 3574 and 3467 kcal·kg−1 DM in FP4. In conclusion, the determined ME values for FB and FP were 77% to 90% of gross energy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicGenetic and Environmental Crop Studies→French-language works237,207→