MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983571580

Milk yield and quality at cow udder quarter level as influenced by quarter position, pathogen and somatic cell score

2022· article· en· W6983571580 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedicinal Plant Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatic cell countQuarter (Canadian coin)UdderMastitisQuartileSomatic cell
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few information on milk from complete draining of individual udder quarters is currently available. The aim of the study was to assess how and to which extent milk yield and quality at udder quarter level are influenced by quarter position, pathogen and somatic cells. Quarter milk samples (n=120) of 10 Simmental cows were collected in three consecutive sampling days. Milks were analysed for bacteriology, chemical composition (fat, protein, casein and lactose, %), pH and urea content (mg/dL). Somatic cell count (SCC) and differential SCC were also determined. Data were analysed with a linear mixed model which included the fixed effects of quarter position (right front, left front, right rear, left rear), pathogens (presence or absence) and somatic cell score (SCS) (4 classes, defined on quartiles of SCS distribution), and the random effects of cow nested within quarter level and residual. Quarter position significantly affected milk yield (p < 0.05), with rear quarters being the most productive. Pathogens had a negligible effect on milk yield and quality. Somatic cell score was significant in explaining the variability of fat, lactose, DSCC and pH (p < 0.05).

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Padua Archive (University of Padua)Same topicMedicinal Plant StudiesFrench-language works237,207