MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081811726 · doi:10.4236/gep.2014.22008

Mathematical Equations for Reducing Water Pollution Problems among Poultry Production Clusters in Nong Khai Province, Thailand

2014· article· en· W2081811726 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Worapol Aengwanich, Thongchai Boonsorn, Komvut Thammasar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience and Environment Protection · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Agency for International DevelopmentInternational Development Research CentreUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsProduction (economics)PollutionEnvironmental scienceGeographyWater pollutionAgricultural scienceWater resource managementEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental protectionHydrology (agriculture)EngineeringEcologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nong Khai raise layer chickens in the poultry houses constructed over fish ponds. Layer farmers use chicken manure to feed their fish. However, unbalance between chicken raising and the size of fish pond or number of fish results in low water quality, which affects fish production and the community's public water resource. In this field study, data was collected from layer farms in three poultry production clusters in Nong Khai province in the northeast of Thailand (a total of 90 farms) between April and August 2013. Data collected consisted of observations of dissolved oxygen (DO) values of water in the fish ponds, the number of egg-laying chickens raised above the fish ponds, the number of fish and size of the fish ponds. When all of these four observations were analyzed, mathematical equations for calculating the number of chickens raised, the number of fish per one rai (1600 m 2 ), and the size of pond suitable for the number of chickens and fish were obtained as follows: 1) number of fish/rai = 5796 + 1097(size of pond) (R 2 = 0.71), 2) number of chicken/rai = 513 + 223(size of pond) (R 2 = 0.48) and 3) size of pond = -0.328474 + 0.000262(Fish) + 0.00117(Chicken) (R 2 = 0.40). When pond = desired pond size, fish = number of fish to be raised and chicken = number of chickens to be raised.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geoscience and Environment ProtectionSame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207