MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258524609 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr54.c4

Organic Crop–Livestock Systems

2009· book-chapter· en· W2258524609 on OpenAlex
Martin H. Entz, Joanne R. Thiessen Martens

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockPastureForageAgroforestryGrazingEnvironmental scienceCropAgronomySustainabilityMixed farmingAgricultural scienceGeographyBusinessBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop–livestock integration involves more than raising both crops and livestock on the same farm. Common organic crop–livestock systems in North America are beef–forage–grain and dairy–forage–grain. Grazing management based on knowledge of climate, soil, and animal requirements is fundamental to ecological organic livestock production. Managing integrated crop–livestock systems requires consideration of a wide range of components, including animals, crops, soil, buildings, and landscape, as well as the expected weather patterns. While animal welfare is often equated with animal health in conventional production, organic standards require consideration of animal welfare to also include animals' need for social interaction and other natural behaviors. Although pasture is a major feed source in integrated organic systems, supplemental feeding may also be required.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.614
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.183 · 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