MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320810843 · doi:10.5539/jas.v5n12p187

Advances in Murrah Breed Clean A2 Milk Production Technologies and Study of Economics at Private Dairy Farms in India

2013· article· en· W4320810843 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O. P. Singh, A. K. S. Tomar, Ayushi Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLivestock Management and Performance Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerdBreedAnimal scienceMurrah buffaloBiologyMilk productionBody weightVeterinary medicineLactationMedicinePregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The opening balance (herd strenth of murrah buffaloes as on 01/04/2012) was 150 heads (32 males and 118 females). The weight at first caving during currentthe current year was 535.71 kg. Buffaloes produced 82098 kg milk. Overall wet and herd averages were 5.66and 3.59 kg, respectively. On an average 62.92% of the total females were in milk.The milk analysis of 872 samles revealed fat, SNF and total solids per cent as 7.88.9.81 and 17.75, respectively. Herd strength for next year was maintained. The opening herd strength of Murrah buffaloes as on 01/04/2013 was 165 heads (38 males and 127 females). In all, 47 animals were deleted from the herd due to various reasons, whereas 57 animals were added due to new births (23 female and 34 male). The new calvings were well distributed over all the months of year, except April 2013 and March 2014 when no calvings took place. The male:female ratio of new calvings was 1.48:1.00. The closing balance of the buffalo herd as on 31/03/2013 was 175 (129 females and 46 males).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicLivestock Management and Performance ImprovementFrench-language works237,207