MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2268963876 · doi:10.13031/2013.3525

EXPERIENCE WITH AUTOMATED MILKING SYSTEMS IN ONTARIO

2001· article· en· W2268963876 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue2001 Sacramento, CA July 29-August 1,2001 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBelt Conveyor Systems Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilkingFlexibility (engineering)DozenAutomatic milkingComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Operations managementOperations researchEngineeringMathematicsStatisticsGeographyForestryArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first robotic milking or automated milking system (AMS) started operating inOntario in March of 1999. Since then more than a dozen systems have been installed in theprovince. Currently only two companies have introduced systems into Ontario, but others willbe installed soon. AMS provide flexibility for smaller milking herds (200 cows or less) byreducing labour needs, and improving time management without the need for set milkingschedules. This paper will discuss experiences that Ontario producers have had with AMS.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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