Exploration of Plant Species Used by Bapedi Ethnic Group for Ethnoveterinary Purposes: A Case Study of Ga-Mphahlele Region in the Limpopo Province, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of plant resources by the Bapedi people in the Limpopo province in South Africa is regarded as part of their tradition and culture. This study was aimed at documenting ethnoveterinary uses of plants in Ga-Mphahlele region in the Limpopo province, South Africa. Information was gathered through semi-structured questionnaires supplemented by field observations from 30 randomly selected Pedi speaking people in Ga-Mphahlele region of the Limpopo province. A total of 52 plant species from 32 plant families were used for 18 ethnoveterinary purposes. The majority of the species (21.2%) were used as fodder, followed by ethnoveterinary medicinal applications against wounds (19.2%), diarrhoea (17.3%), ticks (13.5%) and worms (11.5%) in domestic animals such as cattle, chickens, dogs, donkeys, doves, goats and sheep. The species with frequency of citation (RFC) higher than 0.70 included Citrullus lanatus (fodder), Vachellia karroo (ethnoveterinary medicine and fodder), Sclerocarya birrea subsp. caffra (fodder), Aloe ferox (ethnoveterinary medicine), Drimia sanguinea (ethnoveterinary medicine), Sarcostemma viminale subsp. viminale (ethnoveterinary medicine) and Sorghum bicolor (fodder). The traditional knowledge about forage and ethnoveterinary medicines demonstrated by the Bapedi people enable extension officers and policy makers to appreciate how local communities perceive and utilize plant resources around them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".