MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943939508 · doi:10.1139/cjas-2017-0179

Typologie des élevages bovins laitiers de la région de Souk-Ahras (Algérie)

2019· article· fr· W2943939508 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Yozmane, L. Mebirouk-Boudechiche, K. Chaker-Houd, Saddek Abdelmadjid

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’étude typologique mise en place a pour but de caractériser les différents types d’élevages bovins laitiers dans la wilaya de Souk-Ahras à vocation laitière en Algérie. Pour ceci, nous avons analysé les données d’une enquête qui a porté sur 91 exploitations: analyse des correspondances multiples, suivie d’une classification ascendante hiérarchique. L’analyse a démontré que le foncier, la taille de cheptel et la race sont les principales caractéristiques qui discriminent les trois groupes identifiés (G1, G2 et G3). Les résultats ont en outre démontré une très faible productivité des élevages malgré l’importance du potentiel génétique du cheptel. Ainsi une surface agricole utile et une taille du cheptel importantes dans les deux premiers groupes (G1 et G2) n’ont pas contribué à l’amélioration de la productivité qui reste similaire au (G3) dans lequel la contrainte foncière est plus accentuée. Cette situation est attribuée principalement à la faible production fourragère en raison de la faible pluviométrie et des surfaces irriguées, réservées principalement aux cultures céréalières jugées plus rentables. Devant ce constat, la forte dépendance envers les approvisionnements en concentré dans la ration des vaches peut s’expliquer par les faibles quantités des fourrages disponibles dans les exploitations étudiées.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Animal ScienceSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207