MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396834067 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20238928

Trace mineral testing in Ontario cow-calf operations

2024· article· en· W4396834067 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTexas A&M University Libraries · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)University of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrace mineralTRACE (psycholinguistics)Trace MineralsMineralEnvironmental scienceGeologyAnimal scienceBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is much confusion surrounding trace mineral supple­mentation in cattle, particularly on cow-calf operations. Because a total mixed ration is rarely utilized, it can be chal­lenging to determine the amount of mineral that cattle are con­suming on a daily basis. When producers have health concerns in their herd that may be tied back to trace mineral consump­tion, the veterinarians struggle to determine if supplementa­tion was appropriate and which tests are the most effective to examine trace mineral status in the cows. The objective of this study was to examine the trace mineral status of cows on cow-calf operations in Ontario and understand more about the sup­plementation strategies that were being used.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.159 · 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