Red osier dogwood and its use in animal nutrition: A review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the human population increases globally, the food animal industry has not been spared from the monumental demand for edible animal products, particularly meat. This has necessitated the simultaneous expansion of the productivity of the animal sector to meet the ever-growing human needs. Although antibiotics have been used in food animal production with commendable positive impacts on their growth performance, their sole contributive factor to the increasing incidence of antimicrobial resistance has ushered the strict restrictions placed on their use in the animal sector. This has handed a setback to both animals and farmers; thus, the intense push for a more sustainable antibiotic alternative for use in animal production. The use of plants with concentrated phytogenic compounds has gained much interest due to their beneficial bioactivities, including antioxidant and selective antimicrobial. While the reported beneficial activities of phytogenic additives on animals vary due to their varying total polyphenol concentrations (TPC), red osier dogwood (ROD) plant materials boast of high TPC with excellent antioxidant prowess and growth improvement capacities compared to some plant extracts commonly used in research. However, its adoption in research and commercial scale is still low. Thus, the present review aims to provide concise information on the dietary potential of ROD plant materials in animal feeding.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it