Differential Assessment of Strategies to Increase Milk Yield in Small-Scale Dairy Farming Systems Using Multi-Agent Modelling and Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-agent-based modelling and simulation provides an adequate environment to study the real world. This paper presents the use of a multi-agent research and simulation (MARS) framework and model design based on the overview, design concepts, design (ODD) protocol to model and simulate small-scale management strategies that are important for increased milk yield per cow. In reality, strategies for farm management at a small-scale level are purely based on heuristics that cost farmers and lead to inadequate milk yields. A differential assessment of the farming strategies was conducted to yield a data-driven approach for selection of the best strategies, which in turn will optimize investments and increase milk yield. The agent-based modelling and simulation revealed that, the studied strategies based on income, farm, and farmer-based characteristics influenced an increase of up to 7.72 L of milk above the average (12.7 ± 4.89). Generally, there was an increase in milk yield based on the identified evolvement strategies; from a baseline data average milk yield of 12.7 ± 4.89 to simulated milk yield average of 17.57 ± 0.72. Evaluating the agent-based models in real-world scenarios will strengthen the assurance that the identified strategies can move small-scale dairy farmers from low to higher milk producers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".