Seasonal variations in the crop contents of scavenging Helmeted Guinea Fowls (<i>Numida meleagris</i>, L.) in Parakou (Benin)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. An experiment was carried out with 120 helmeted guinea fowls during one year in Parakou (Benin). Feed intake, ingredient and chemical composition, along with the nutritional adequacy of scavenging diets were measured during the rainy season (November-February) and dry season (March-October) in order to propose supplementation strategies. Ingredients found in crops were identified and allocated into 6 main categories (supplemental feed, seeds, green forages, animal materials, mineral matter and unidentified materials). 2. Mean dry weights of crop contents were significantly higher in the rainy than in the dry season. Amounts and proportions of supplemental feed and seeds were not significantly different between seasons, whereas those of green forage, animal materials and mineral matter were higher in rainy season. Supplemental feed, especially maize and sorghum, was the largest component of the crop content in both seasons. The most represented grass seeds were Panicum maximum (rainy season) and Rottboellia cochinchinensis (dry season). 3. Dietary concentrations of organic matter, non-nitrogen extract and metabolisable energy were higher in the dry season, while mineral concentrations were higher in the rainy season. There were no significant differences between the two seasons in dry matter, crude protein or crude fibre. 4. Scavenging provided insufficient nutrients and energy to allow guinea fowls to be productive. Therefore, more nutritionally balanced supplementary feed would be required during both seasons.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it