MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126510381 · doi:10.33584/rps.10.2003.2987

Practical tree fodder experience during drought

2003· article· en· W3126510381 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Kari Bergjord Olsen, J. F. L. Charlton

Bibliographic record

VenueNZGA Research and Practice Series · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systems
Canadian institutionsGreenfield Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFodderWillowAgroforestryTree (set theory)LivestockErosion controlAgricultural engineeringForestryGeographyAgronomyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringBiologyMathematicsErosionEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the early 1980s willow and poplar trees originally planted for erosion control have been cut and fed to hungry livestock during droughts, with impressive results. This involves shaping trees by cutting them to develop an operating "nest" that enables the farmer to prune regrown branches with greater safety, provided forestry training has been undertaken. More recently, trees have been planted specifically to grow supplementary fodder and some types have performed better than others. The concept is, in our opinion, quite cost-effective and the benefits of growing these trees far outweigh any drawbacks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNZGA Research and Practice SeriesSame topicAgroforestry and silvopastoral systemsFrench-language works237,207