MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052240974

Red Clover Improves the Energy to Protein Balance of Lucerne-Grass Herbage

2022· article· en· W7052240974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiafiltrationLimitingTubulopathyHyporeflexiaExclosureTSG101
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low ratio of readily fermentable carbohydrate to soluble protein concentrations in lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) leads to inefficient use of herbage N by ruminants. To improve the energy to protein balance in lucerne-grass herbage, four proportions of lucerne:red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) were compared in mixtures with and without grasses: timothy (Phleum pratense L.) and tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceus Schreb. Dumort.) in Quebec (QC, Canada). In the first post-seeding year, red clover proportion averaged (across grasses and four harvests) 0, 37, 59, and 74% in herbage mixtures. Increasing the proportion of red clover caused a slight but significant decrease in herbage total nitrogen (TN) concentration (32 to 31 g kg-1 DM) but substantial decreases in non-protein N (PA), rapidly (PB1) and moderately (PB2) degraded protein fractions, and a significant increase in the slowly degraded protein fractions (PB3+PC) (157 to 308 g kg-1 TN). With the inclusion of 74% of red clover, the ratio of soluble sugar to crude protein (CP) in herbage increased from 0.25 to 0.36 because of the increase in the soluble sugar concentration (48 to 66 g kg-1 DM). The inclusion of red clover in mixture with lucerne improved the energy to CP balance compared to lucerne alone, and caused a linear increase in the herbage in vitro neutral detergent fiber digestibility from 568 to 639 g kg-1 aNDF with similar herbage dry matter yield (10.3 Mg ha-1).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky)Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207