MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323056025 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20064731

Validation of the Minnesota Easy Culture System II

2006· article· en· W4323056025 on OpenAlexaff
A. Lago, S. Godden, R. Bey, K. Leslie, R.T. Dingwell, P.L. Ruegg

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMastitisSubclinical infectionMedicineHerdBusinessBiotechnologyDisease controlIntensive care medicineEnvironmental healthVeterinary medicineBiologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite continued progress in mastitis control research, mastitis remains the most costly infectious disease, and the most frequent cause of antibacterial use, on commercial dairy farms. As such, research should continue on the development and validation of new management tools that will help reduce the health and economic impact of this disease, while at the same time promoting the judicious and strategic use of antimicrobials on dairy farms. Accordingly, there is increasing adoption of on-farm culture systems for selective treatment of clinical mastitis cases. Similarly, there may be an opportunity for using on-farm culture systems for the diagnosis and selective treatment of subclinical intramammary infections in fresh cows.
 A multi-site, multi-herd, three-year controlled field study has been designed to validate the efficacy and quantify the cost-benefit of incorporating on-farm culture systems into both clinical and subclinical mastitis monitoring and treatment programs. This manuscript outlines the methodology followed and presents the preliminary results of one of the objectives of the project, which is validation of an on-farm culture system (Minnesota Easy Culture System II).

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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy CowsFrench-language works237,207