MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1676234474 · doi:10.35792/zot.34.2.2014.5527

ANALISIS PERMINTAAN PRODUK PETERNAKAN DI DESA TAWAANG KECAMATAN TENGA KABUPATEN MINAHASA SELATAN

2014· article· en· W1676234474 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Reynol Loho, Boyke Rorimpandey, M T Massie, Nansi Margret Santa

Bibliographic record

VenueZOOTEC · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Agroindustry Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)LivestockTempeBusinessAgricultural scienceProduct (mathematics)GeographyFood scienceBiologyForestryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT ANALYSIS OF LIVESTOCK PRODUCT DEMAND AT TAWAANG VILLAGE, TENGA DISTRICT SOUTH MINAHASA REGENCY. The purpose of this study was to determine the number of *Alumni Fakultas Peternakan Unsrat **Jurusan Sosial Ekonomi Peternakan livestock product demand in Tenga district. The problem this study was how far demand factors such as prices of chicken meat, pork, beef meat, fish, tofu and fermented soybean (tempe) affected the level of demand for livestock products in Tenga district.The total number of samples used in this study were 45 respondents of households. Data collection was conducted during 3 months using the survey method. The analysis used was the model of SUR (Seemingly Unrelated Regression) using the equation of the demand function. The results showed that the numbers of livestock product demand in the Tenga district were chicken meat of 3.04 kg/quarter, pork of 3.24 kg/quarter, beef of 1.29kg/quarter, and egg product of 64.56 eggs/quarter. Therefore; factor of the prices of chicken meat, pork, beef, fish, tofu and fermented soybean (tempe) influenced the demand of livestock products. Keywords: Demand, prices, animal product.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZOOTECSame topicAgriculture and Agroindustry StudiesFrench-language works237,207