MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7162085871 · doi:10.82308/24647

Nutritional, managerial, physiological, and environmental factors affecting milk urea nitrogen in Quebec Holstein cows : a field trial

2000· dissertation· en· W7162085871 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Catherine. Depatie

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField trialHerdNitrogenUreaStarchSomatic cell countUrea nitrogenDairy cattle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This trial was carried out in order to elucidate factors affecting milk urea nitrogen (MUN). Twenty-five herds were selected for MUN testing. Three sampling periods were chosen. The first occurred during the months of March and April, the second during July and August, and the third during November and December 1997. A total of 2,686 samples were collected and analyzed. Two different methods were employed for MUN analysis and were referred to as the Macdonald Campus method (MUN-MAC) and the Programme d'Analyse des Troupeaux Laitiers du Quebec method (MUN-P.A.T.L.Q.). The MUN-MAC consists of an enzymatic method while the P.A.T.L.Q. method is an infra-red method. Prior to initiation of the trial, the MUN-MAC method was validated and found suitable for use in this experiment. The results demonstrated that the factors which significantly contributed to the models were the ration's net energy of lactation, season, region, somatic cell count, total dry matter, neutral detergent fiber, non-structural carbohydrates, total fat, crude protein, protein to energy ratio, starch to protein ratio, parity and days in milk. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology→French-language works237,207→