MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019319678

Fodder oats in Nepal: Fulfilling farmer needs (part II)

2016· other· en· W7019319678 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln University Research Archive (Lincoln University) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFodderProduction (economics)Dry matterCropMilk productionDual purposeQuality (philosophy)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of winter fodder production to Nepal, based mainly on fodder oats, has been spectacularly successful as it has allowed improved animal nutrition and health, increased milk production and therefore farmer incomes, and reduced workloads (particularly for women). Seed of improved fodder oat varieties was originally intro­duced to Nepal in the 1980s, but unfortunately formal maintenance and seed multiplica­tion of the selected varieties was not achieved. Since 2000, a novel New Zealand-based oat improvement initiative, coupled with the winter fodder production programme, has prompted renewed interest in this crop, and since 2004 six new varieties have been released based on parent material originally supplied from Canada, New Zealand and India. Under the new Cool Season Crop Improvement Programme-Nepal, an early gen­eration seed maintenance and production nursery network is being established, linking research, extension and farmers. In this poster we briefly review the history of oat introductions, and provide a framework for the provision of genotypes that fulfill farmer needs for quick growing, high quality dry matter producing, multi-cut varieties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Bibliometrics, Science and technology studies, Open science, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0380.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.016

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.242 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln University Research Archive (Lincoln University)French-language works237,207