MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890280840 · doi:10.1186/s13570-018-0131-7

A basic characterization of small-holders’ goat production systems in Laghouat area, Algeria

2018· article· en· W2890280840 on OpenAlexaff
Mourad Laouadi, Safia Tennah, Nacereddine Kafidi, Nicolas Antoine‐Moussiaux, Nassim Moula

Bibliographic record

VenuePastoralism Research Policy and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockAgricultureHerdAgricultural scienceIndigenousGeographyBoer goatAgroforestryMixed farmingSustainabilityPastoralismCash cropBusinessBiologyEcologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to investigate the practices of goat breeding and establish a classification of goat herds, a survey was conducted with 106 goat breeders in the semi-arid region of Laghouat. Two indigenous breeds were encountered in this survey: the Arabia and the Mekatia; the Arabia being found as the dominant. The results show that breeders choose the breeding goats with a goal of generating more income in cash from the sale of products. The goat milk marketing chain appears to be weak. The milk produced is primary used for home consumption. A multivariate analysis categorized the goat farming of Laghouat region into three groups corresponding to three different farming systems: cluster 1 (pastoral system), cluster 2 (mixed crop-livestock system) and cluster 3 (small herds in zero grazing system). The in-depth study of the goals and contexts of goat farming in Laghouat will allow policy makers to design strategies for sustainable development of goat breeding in the region.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePastoralism Research Policy and PracticeSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207