BOUQUET - Une méthode pour évaluer les services rendus par les ateliers de volailles plein-air.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In free-range poultry production, the management of the outdoor run is firstly designed to provide comfort to the animals. However, other services can be provided, such as improvement in income, contribution to direct and indirect jobs, or carbon storage and maintenance of biodiversity. In order to better consider them, these services need to be identified and quantified, which will make it possible a better reasoning of the outdoor run management. Developed by a group of experts, the service evaluation method, known as the BOUQUET method, focusing on free-range production units (meat, eggs and fat palmipeds), was discussed and adjusted with representatives of its potential users (farmers, technicians, advisers, etc.) in three production regions of France (West, South-East and South-West). The method considers 13 services divided into 5 categories. Those services are evaluated with a set of 29 indicators. The assessment takes half a day in three steps: i) mapping with an aerial picture of the site, ii) interview of the farmer and iii) measurements on the outdoor run studied. Data are then entered into a calculator which transforms them in scores for each service and provides a global representation of results by category of services. The analysis of these results allows the farmer to have a reflective approach of the management of his outdoor run, to establish a dialogue with his adviser, and to discuss an appropriate action plan according to his own constraints and objectives.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".