Modeling Small-Scale Dairy Farms in Central Mexico Using Multi-Criteria Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Milk supply from Mexican dairy farms does not meet demand and small-scale farms can contribute toward closing the gap. Two multi-criteria programming techniques, goal programming and compromise programming, were used in a study of small-scale dairy farms in central Mexico. To build the goal and compromise programming models, 4 ordinary linear programming models were also developed, which had objective functions to maximize metabolizable energy for milk production, to maximize margin of income over feed costs, to maximize metabolizable protein for milk production, and to minimize purchased feedstuffs. Neither multi-criteria approach was significantly better than the other; however, by applying both models it was possible to perform a more comprehensive analysis of these small-scale dairy systems. The multi-criteria programming models affirm findings from previous work and suggest that a forage strategy based on alfalfa, ryegrass, and corn silage would meet nutrient requirements of the herd. Both models suggested that there is an economic advantage in rescheduling the calving season to the second and third calendar quarters to better synchronize higher demand for nutrients with the period of high forage availability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".