Impact De La Divagation Des Bovins Sur Les Cultures Dans La Ville De Korhogo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une étude a été menée dans la ville de Korhogo en vue de déterminer l’impact de la divagation des bovins sur les cultures. Pour ce faire, une enquête a été menée auprès de 90 cultivateurs et 50 éleveurs. Les résultats ont montré que les éleveurs et les cultivateurs étaient en majorité des hommes contre une minorité de femmes. Les principales races de bovins élevées ont été par ordre d’importance les métis, les zébus, les baoulés et les N’damas. Le mode d’élevage prédominant a été la divagation où les bovins ont été principalement nourris avec le fourrage naturel et abreuvés dans les cours d’eau. La divagation des bovins dans les champs a entrainé beaucoup de dégâts au niveau des différentes cultures. Les cultures annuelles ont été les plus endommagées suivies des cultures maraîchères. Les cultures pérennes ont été moins attaquées. Les causes des dégâts ont été identifiées aussi bien chez les éleveurs que chez les cultivateurs. Les conséquences ont été observées aussi bien chez les bovins que les cultures. En définitive, une sensibilisation serait nécessaire dans le monde agricole en vue de limiter les dégâts de la divagation des bovins. A study was carried out in the city of Korhogo to determine the impact of cattle rambling on crops. To do this, a survey was conducted among 90 growers and 50 breeders. The results showed that the majority of breeders and cultivators were men against a minority of women. The main breeds of cattle raised were, in order of importance, the mestizos, the zebus, the baoulés and the N’damas. The predominant breeding method was straying where cattle were mainly fed with natural fodder and watered in the rivers. The rambling of cattle in the fields has caused a lot of damage in different crops. Annual crops were the most damaged, followed by vegetable crops. Perennial crops have been less attacked. The causes of the damage have been identified for both breeders and cultivators. The consequences have been observed in both cattle and crops. Ultimately, awareness would be necessary in the agricultural world in order to limit the damage caused by the ramblings of cattle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".