On-farm evaluation of a needle-free injection device to vaccinate beef calves under Western Canadian conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to compare animal performance, presence of skin reactions and immune response following vaccination of beef calves via needle-free (NF) and needle-syringe (NS) vaccination techniques. Spring-born (Study A) and fall-born (Study B) calves were vaccinated against bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) and Clostridium chauvoei (C. chauvoei) via NF and NS vaccination techniques. The parameters measured in this study included body weight (BW), skin reactions and serum antibodies. Animal performance and antibody levels against BVDV and C. chauvoei did not differ between vaccination techniques. However, NF vaccinated calves had a greater frequency of skin reactions when compared to NS vaccinated calves, except for day 42 of Study B. It can be concluded that a needle-free injection device (NFID) can be used effectively to stimulate an immune response without impacting animal performance, but may cause a greater frequency of skin reactions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".