Primary Audience: Nutritionists, Researchers, Manufacturers of Feather Meal DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
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
Several samples of feather meal evaluated at this laboratory during the past several years [I] were found to have metabolizable energy values far in excess of the 2360 kcal/kg (1073 kcalflb) reported by the National Re-search Council [2]. Values obtained were in reasonable agreement with the higher values for feather meal determined in both Europe [3] and Canada [4]. Because of the magnitude of difference between our initial results and NRC values, a broader investigation of the metabolizable energy of U.S. feather meals was initiated. The need for accurate information on the energy content of feather meals is of import-ance to both the renderer and the nutritionist. The feeding value of feather meal is affected not only by protein content, but also by energy. Thus, if the energy of feather meal is underval-ued at the present time, it is in the interest of the rendering industry to have this error cor-rected. For poultry nutritionists, the relation-ship between energy and nutrients is important: if the energy content of feather meal is underestimated, then its inclusion in poultry diets will lead to wider ca1orie:protein ratios, and may contribute to excess fat accu-mulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifteen feather meal samples that were produced commercially were obtained from
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 | 0.000 |
| 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