Effectively Reaching the Equine Community in Kentucky
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2009, Extension Specialists and County Extension Agents from the University of Kentucky in the Southeast United States have conducted an annual educational event; the Kentucky Equine Farm and Facilities Expo field-day. These annual field-days have provided practical, hands-on demonstrations and seminars for 135-250 members of the equine community per event. Participants have been a mix of horse owners in relation to farm size, number of horses and business vs. recreation. Many participants have not been previous consumers of Extension educational programming. One of the major draws of the Farm and Facility Expo field days has been the host sites, which have included various well-known Thoroughbred, Sport-Horse and Quarter Horse farms, with an increased number of participants observed when the event was held at well-known farms. Partnerships have been established with many equine related businesses, with over 30 companies displaying their products and services at the event. The educational programs at these events have been conducted by Extension Specialists, industry experts and Extension Agents and have included timely topics such as weed identification and control, vaccination protocols, farm safety, pasture management and renovation, rotational grazing, feeding and nutrition, fencing options, barn design, on-farm solar energy and many others. Post-event evaluations have been conducted and, of the more than 2,400 persons who attended these events, 84.25% of the respondents have found the information presented useful in the management of their horse operation, 78.5% planned to make at least one change in their horse operation and 90% were very satisfied with the event.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".