MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7103986425 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2024-0159

A 99-year journey on the development of Canadian forages for livestock production

2025· article· en· W7103986425 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsLethbridge CollegeMillar College of the BibleUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockForageGrazingPerennial plantProductivityProduction (economics)SustainabilityAgricultureResource (disambiguation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perennial forage, both grasses and legumes, are a critical component for ruminant livestock in Canada, being produced for both grazing and conserved feed. Canadian grasslands are a rich resource for cattle producers, particularly in the prairie region where the beef industry is largely located. Over the last 99 years, perennial forage breeding programs across the country have sought to improve and develop introduced forages to adapt to the Canadian climate and with particular tolerance to drought, diseases and, critically, enhanced winter survival. These long-term efforts have resulted in the release of approximately 171 cultivars (of which 75 were legumes and 96 were grasses). Of these grasses approximately 30 were tame and native cool-season species. These have helped maximise the productivity of prairie grasslands and enhance the sustainability of the beef sector in Canada. Breeding efforts continue today to further improve forage production to meet livestock needs and generate important ecosystem goods and services in an ever-changing climate.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.006

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal Science→Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→