Effects of coating kibble with chicken fat enriched with free fatty acids on digestibility and palatability in Labrador retrievers
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
Abstract Complete uncoated extruded kibble was coated with a premium chicken fat spiked with 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, or 20% free fatty acids (Oleic acid, Millipore Sigma. Burlington, MA), and 3% liquid chicken-based natural flavor. Kibbles were then utilized in oral palatability (20 dogs, 10M/10F), aromatic palatability (20 dogs, 10M/10F), and apparent total tract digestibility (36 dogs, 18M/18F). Kibble odors were analyzed by flash gas chromatography electronic nose (AlphaMOS, Toulouse, France), and SPME GC/q-TOF (MUMC, Columbia, MO). In the aromatic palatability trials, there were no significant differences in first approach (P ≥ 0.21), percent interaction time (P ≥ 0.16), or interaction ratio (P ≥ 0.94). In the oral palatability trials, there were no significant differences in first approach (P ≥ 0.26), first bite (P ≥ 0.50), percent consumed (P ≥ 0.15), or intake ratio (P ≥ 0.59). There was no significant difference in protein, carbohydrate, or dry matter digestibility (P ≥ 0.06), and no significant difference in fat digestibility between coated diets by Tukey’s post hoc (P ≥ 0.09). Principle component analysis of e-nose peaks showed minimal odor changes between samples (DI = −3). Volatile analysis identified 16 compounds correlated with oleic acid percentage (r2 ≥ 0.50). Kibble coated with chicken fat containing up to 20% oleic acid did not negatively impact odor profile or palatability in Labrador retrievers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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