MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977796759 · doi:10.1071/ea04143

Opportunities for future Australian dairy systems: a review

2005· review· en· W1977796759 on OpenAlexaff
S.C. García, W. J. Fulkerson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Experimental Agriculture · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityDairy farmingProduction (economics)AgricultureBusinessEnvironmental management systemOrder (exchange)Agricultural economicsNatural resource economicsEconomicsIrrigationEconomic growthGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last decade, Australian dairy farmers have been challenged to increase total factor productivity (the ratio between the rate of increase in total output and the rate of increase in the use of all inputs) in order to attenuate the negative effects of a steady decline in the terms of trade over the same period of time. Overall, the increase in total factor productivity has been low (1.5%) and farmers are questioning the most appropriate production system for the future. In an attempt to address this central question, we first identified the nature of the key pressures dairy farmers in Australia are likely to face in the future, namely labour and feed related issues. We then discuss major opportunities for developing new dairy production systems based on increased efficiency in the use of land and cows and on increasing the efficiency of labour management and lifestyle. We do not attempt to provide the best futuristic option for dairy systems in Australia. Instead, this review discusses key areas of the production system with potential to impact positively on any or all the physical, economic and labour-related aspects of modern dairy farming. By so doing, this review highlights the research questions that need to be addressed now in order to provide Australian dairy farmers with improved tools to manage their production systems in the future.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.949

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations105
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Experimental AgricultureSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207