MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W90911403 · doi:10.2527/2000.7871726x

Evaluation of site and age of weaning on pig growth performance.

2000· article· en· W90911403 on OpenAlexaff
John F. Patience, H. W. Gonyou, D. L. Whittington, E. Beltranena, Carrie Rhodes, Andrew G. Van Kessel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanGenome Prairie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeaningHerdAnimal scienceBiologyVeterinary medicineMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Site-segregated early weaning (SSEW) refers to the practice of weaning pigs from the sow at an early age and placing them in a nursery that is physically isolated from the breeding herd. An experiment involving 369 pigs was conducted at the Prairie Swine Center to investigate the impact of SSEW on pig performance when the herd of origin has a high health status and when housing and management conditions are kept as similar as possible across weaning regime. Three treatments were compared: weaning at 21+/-3 d and keeping the pigs on-site in an all-in-all-out nursery room (Control), weaning at 12+/-2 d of age and keeping the pigs on-site in a separate but identical all-in-all-out nursery room (OSEW), or weaning at 12+/-2 d of age and moving the pigs off-site to an all-in-all-out nursery room located 16 km from the Center (SSEW). Ventilation, feed, penning, feeders, and drinkers were kept as similar as possible for all treatments. Off-site weaning improved 56-d body weight (P < .05) by 12.5 and 8.3% compared with OSEW and Control, respectively. The improvement appeared to be the result of improvements primarily in feed intake but also due to enhanced efficiency of nutrient utilization. This experiment confirms that SSEW results in significant improvements in 56-d weights, even when the herd of origin has a relatively high health status.

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207