MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seasonal Variation of Calving in Murrah Buffalo in Bihar

2019· article· en· W2972945449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
V. V. Potdar, Jayant Khadse, Sachin Joshi, Yuvraj Gaundare, N L Phadke, Marimuthu Swaminathan, A.B. Pande

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Buffalo Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLivestock Management and Performance Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBAIF Development Research Foundation
KeywordsMurrah buffaloIce calvingVariation (astronomy)SeasonalityBiologyGeographyAnimal scienceLactationEcologyPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was carried out to estimate the seasonal variation of calving in Murrah buffaloes. The study was conducted in North West alluvial plain of Bihar (Chappra, Siwan and Samastipur), of India on 773 Murrah buffaloes, and these buffaloes were inseminated during June 2010 to December 2014 at BAIF's field Artificial Insemination centres which provide door-step artificial insemination service at village's level. The result indicated that the calving of Murrah buffaloes occurred throughout the year. In Chhapra maximum calving observed in August, i.e. 17% while 14% in October. September and November 13% each. Based on season majority of calving observed between July to January. In Samastipur maximum calving observed in August 16% while in September 14 % followed by November 13% and October month 11%. Based on season majority of calving observed between July to January months. In Samastipur maximum calving observed in August 16% while in September 14% followed by November 13% and October 11%. Based on season majority of calving found between July to January months. It could be concluded that Murrah buffaloes tend to calve more in the days with shorter photoperiod as compared to days with more extended photoperiod.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Buffalo ScienceSame topicLivestock Management and Performance ImprovementFrench-language works237,207