MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103535000

Field Peas can be Included in the Phase 2 Diet for Nursery Pigs\nWithout Adverse Effects on Pig Performance

2002· article· en· W7103535000 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField peaField (mathematics)Pre schoolPhase (matter)Field experiment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Field peas are usually not included in diets for nursery pigs in the US. However, European and Canadian data suggest that field peas may be included in diets for nursery pigs without compromising pig performance (Stefanyshyn et al., 1999). So far, only little research has been conducted in the US to evaluate the effect of including field peas in diets for nursery pigs. Landblom and Poland (1996) reported decreased pig performance if 30 to 50% field peas were included in phase 1 diets for nursery pigs. However, working with extruded peas, they reported no detrimental effects of feeding 20% peas if the inclusion was restricted to the second phase of the nursery period. Due to the relatively low cost of field peas, any inclusion of field peas will result in a decrease in the overall diet cost. Therefore, the current experiment was conducted to determine if field peas might be included in the phase 2 diets for nursery pigs.

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 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.207 · 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