Sourcing and Management Practices by the Live-Goat Suppliers and Retailers in Lagos State, Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sourcing and management practices of the live-goat suppliers and retailers in Lagos State, Nigeria were evaluated. Sources of the live-goat and the husbandry practices on them by suppliers and retailers were determined, using three-stage sampling procedures. Three livestock markets each from Lagos East, West and Central Senatorial Districts were purposively selected. Nine suppliers and 18 retailers were randomly selected in each market resulting to 81 and 162 respondents, respectively. Data on sourcing, handling, and holding period of live-goat were collected using two well-structured questionnaires for the suppliers and retailers of goats. Results showed that most suppliers (89.3%) purchased goats from open markets outside the state. The suppliers (52.0%) and retailers (80.0%) tethered goats. Most suppliers (77.3%) and retailers (90.0%) held goats for a maximum of three weeks, fed goats on dry grass sold in the open markets and some from open paddock. Routine administration of analgesic, dewormer, salt licks and water mainly sourced from boreholes and rivers were practices by both the suppliers and retailers. The age and level of education of the suppliers and retailers significantly influenced (p < 0.05) the management systems, handling, pest control, deworming, watering and additives used by the suppliers and retailers of goats. Most retailers (90.0%) belonged to markets regulated by different sectorial market associations while the local and state government officials in the markets performed no regulatory roles. Therefore, live-goat in Lagos State were sourced from other parts of Nigeria, handled, and managed by the suppliers and then retailers prior to their disposal in a manner directly influenced by the age and levels of education of the practitioners.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".