MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128912970

Production laitière de la race Gudhali et croissance des jeunes purs et croisés, en zone périurbaine de Bobo-Dioulasso (Burkina Fasso)

2005· article· fr· W2128912970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamani Marichatou, Abdoulaye Gouro, Augustin Kanwé

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers Agricultures · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesBiologyArtMilk productionAnimal science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La lactation de 16 genisses Gudhali a ete suivie depuis la mise bas jusqu’au tarissement, de meme que la croissance de 10 veaux Gudhali purs, 10 croises Gudhali × Montbeliard (G × M) et 10 Gudhali × Holstein (G × H) de la naissance a 12 mois d’âge. Les poids a la naissance des croises G × M (32,3 ± 4,7 kg) et GxH (28,7 ± 3 kg) sont significativement superieurs a celui des Gudhali purs (25 ± 4 kg). Aussi bien les poids a âges types que les gains moyens quotidiens (GMQ) sont plus eleves pour les metis que les purs Gudhali. Cela laisse presager une difference d’âge de mise a la reproduction et un meilleur rendement carcasse pour les croises. La duree de lactation varie de 99 a 262 jours (sauf une lactation de 313 jours), ce qui est faible par rapport a ce qui est generalement recommande (10 mois) et ce qui est observe chez l’eleveur traditionnel. Le lait trait mesure chez les lactantes varie de 253,5 litres a 929,6 litres. Ce fait est du a une variabilite entre individus (de 1,2 L a 7 L/jour). Dans l’ensemble, ces Gudhali ont une production laitiere superieure a celle des vaches locales, une production qui est jugee bonne dans cette zone. Cependant, pour mieux profiter du potentiel laitier dans les croisements, une selection prealable est necessaire au sein des Gudhali.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.252 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers AgriculturesSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207